LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Shelf i2-i5-4 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



(( 



Close Communion^ 



OR, BAPTISM AS A PREREQUISITE TO 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. 



BY 



/ 

JOHN T. CHKISTIAN, A.M., D.D., 

Author of ^^ Immersion, the Act of Christian Baptism,^'' etc. 



LOUISVILLE, KY. 

BAPTIST BOOK CONCERN. 

1892. 




^ 



,c^^ 



Copyright, 1892, 
By J. T. CHRISTIAN. 



The Library 
OF Congress 



WASHINQTON 



Electrotyped 

BY ROBERT ROWELL, 

LOUISVILLE, KY. 



PREFACE. 

THE position of the Baptists upon the Com- 
munion question is one of neutrality. Wa 
do not invite others to participate with us; andl 
not inviting others we do not accept invitations. . 
Our position is defensive rather than offensive. 
This book is written in this spirit. It is intended 
to explain and defend the practice commonly 
known as "Close Communion." 

We think our practice is Scriptural. The^ 
brotherhood of the New Testament were one in 
fellowship and doctrines. Under those condi- 
tions open communion was impossible. This 
view is confirmed by all history. I have been 
unable to find an instance of open communion for 
the first sixteen hundred years after Christ. 

I am in no way responsible for the opinions of 
the authors I quote, only so far as I may endorse 
them. Many of these writers believe in baptis- 
mal salvation, in baptism coming in the room of 
circumcision, and other errors which we repudi- 
ate. I have, however, accurately examined orig- 
inal sources, so that there may be no doubt as to 
the testimony of these writers. 

The author desires that this book may be read 
in the kind spirit in which it was written. There 
are many hard facts in the book, but no hard 
words. I merely recorded facts as I found them 
without passion or prejudice. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

CHAPTER I. 
Are Ignorance, Prejudice, and Bigotry the Reasons 
Why Baptists are Close Communionists? *7 

CHAPTER II. 
The Baptist Position Stated and Defended by the 
Scriptures 21 

CHAPTER III. 
The Testimony of the Fathers 39 

CHAPTER IV. 
The Testimony of Scholars ,...., 50 

CHAPTER V. 
The Testimony of Creeds, Confessions, etc 61 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Terms of Communion in the Episcopal Church. 
Are the Episcopalians Close Communionists? 64 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Terms of Communion in the Presbyterian Church. 
Are the Presbyterians Close Communionists? 81 

CHAPTER VIII. 
The Terms of Communion in the Congregational 
Church. Are the Congregationalists Close Com- 
munionists? 109 

CHAPTER IX. 
The Terms of Communion in the Methodist Church. 
Are the Methodists Close Communionists? The 
Wesleys and Dr. Coke 118 



6 CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER X. 
Tlie Terms of Communioii in the Methodist Church. 
Are the Methodists Close Communionlsts? Asbury 
and Hedding-. The Discipline. Living^Bishops. 
Watson and Others 138 

CHAPTER XI. 
The Terms of Communion of the Disciples or Chris- 
tian Church. Are the Disciples Close Commun- 
ionists? 156 

CHAPTER XII. 
What Is Baptism? 163 

CHAPTER XIII. 
Are Baptists Lacking in Charity"? 190 

CHAPTER XIV. 
Positive and Moral Law 197 

CHAPTER XV. 
Open Communion Destroys Gospel DisciiDline 202 

CHAPTER XVI. 
Infant Communion 212 

CHAPTER XVII. 
Open Communionlsts Do Xot Endorse Each Other. . . .220 

CHAPTER XA'III. 
Open Communion is a Worn Out Heresy Borrowed 

From the Baptists 234 



"CLOSE COMMUNION:" 

OR, BAPTISM AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE 
LORD'S SUPPER. 



CHAPTER I. 

ARE IGNORANCE, PREJUDICE, AND BIGOTRY THE 
REASONS WHY BAPTISTS ARE CLOSE COM- 

MUNIONISTS? 

THE Baptists have been thoroughly misun- 
derstood on the subject of Close Commun- 
ion; and it has been difficult to get our real 
opinions before the world. That we are more 
illiberal, un-Christian, and sectarian than others 
I do not believe. Perhaps it is frequently more 
convenient and popular to use denunciatory 
words than to meet our arguments. Our position 
has been distorted, and some of those professing 
the broadest liberality have sometimes called us 
the harshest names. I shall notice a few of these 
epithets not for the purpose of stirring up ill 
feeling and strife, for of that there has been too 
much already, but rather that we may have the 
subject fairly before our minds. I believe that 
we can easily show that these names have no 
more application to us than to others. 



8 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

We have beeli called ' ' bigoted. " Webster says 
that in its origin the word bigot means ' ' hypo- 
crite," and defines it: "One obstinately and un- 
reasonably wedded to a particular religious 
creed, opinion, practice or ritual." Hypocrites 
we are not. It is proverbial that the Baptists 
are among the boldest and most progressive 
people on earth; and that they have been swift, 
in all proper ways, to promulgate their opinions. 
To the charge of being obstinately and unreason- 
ably wedded to an opinion we plead not guilty. 
And as to creed or ritual it is not so much as 
mentioned among us. The fact that our doc- 
trines and practices do not agree with what 
others believe on those subjects, does not, in the 
least, go to prove that we are not grounded upon 
the truth. Our highest appeal is not to the bar 
of public opinion, but to the Word of God. We 
stand by the Bible. When God commands a 
thing, we believe men ought to obey. When 
men object to this position we make answer: 
''Whether it be right in the sight of God to 
hearken unto you more than unto God, judge 
ye." (Acts 4:19.) If this is not popular with so- 
called liberal opinions, as it is not, we can only 
say: "We ought to obey God rather than men." 
(Acts 5:29.) We must have a "thus saith the 
Lord." We should not be criticised because we 
refuse to obey the commandments of men. 

Many wholly mistake latitudinarianism for 



IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 9 

Catholicism. I do not think John Wesley ever 
said a truer thing than what he says on this 
point. Said he: "A catholic spirit is not specu- 
lative latitudinarianism. It is not an indifference 
to all opinions. This is the spawn of hell; not 
the offspring of heaven. This unsettledness of 
thought, this being driven to and fro, and tossed 
about by every wind of doctrine, is a great curse, 
not a blessing; an irreconcilable enemy, not a 
true Catholicism. A man of a true catholic spirit 
does not halt between two opinions; nor vainly 
endeavor to blend them into one. Observe this, 
you that know not what spirit you are of; who 
call yourself a catholic spirit, only because you 
are of a muddy understanding; because your 
mind is all in a mist; because you are of no set- 
tled, consistent principles, but are for jumbling 
all opinions together. Be convinced that you have 
quite missed your way. You know not where 
you are. You think you have got into the very 
Spirit of Christ; when in truth you are nearer 
the spirit of Anti-Christ." (Rowland Hill's Full 
Answer to J. Wesley's Remarks, pp. 40,41.) 

It ought to be popular for a man to have con- 
victions and stand by them. For my part I like 
a man who believes something and knows why 
he believes it; and when occasion calls for it is 
not afraid to defend his position. " The appoint- 
ment of God," says Turretin, ''is the highest 
law, the supreme necessity; which we ought 



10 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

rather to obey than indulge popular ignorance 
and T^^^eakness. " (Inst. TheoL, Tom. iii, Loc. xix, 
Quaes, xiv, sec. 14, p. 336.) This is the height 
and front of our offending. We recognize no man 
as Lord of the conscience. I, therefore, appeal 
from the position that we are hypocrites and 
obstinate. 

CHRISTIAN UNION. 

The Baptists of the United States stand pub- 
licly pledged to unite at any time with any or all 
Christian denominations, upon the "Word of God. 
We are in favor of Christian union, not upon ' 'the 
historic episcopacy," or upon historic anything 
else, but upon the Bible. There is nothing un- 
reasonable in this demand. If it is bigotry to say 
that God's Word is right, then we plead guilty. 
In another place I will show the evil results of 
Open Communion upon Christian charity; but 
here I plead only that we are not uncharitable 
and illiberal. The Southern Baptist Convention 
and the Northern Anniversaries unanimously 
passed the following resolutions: 

"Whereas, The different denominations have 
lately been giving unusual attention to the sub- 
ject of Christian union, and 

"Whereas, It is conceded to be a great de- 
sideratum that Christians should agree in all im- 
portant points of doctrine and polity, and 

' ' Whereas, There is a standard recognized as 



I 



IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 11 

authoritative by all Christians, viz: the Bible, 
therefore, 

''Resolved, By the Southern Baptist Conven- 
tion (and the same resolutions were passed by the 
Northern Anniversaries), representing 1,200,000 
communicants, that we recognize the gravity of 
the problem of bringing different denominations 
to see alike on important subjects concerning 
which they now differ, and they recognize in the 
teaching of Scripture the only basis on which 
such an agreement is either possible or desir- 
able, also 

' 'Resolved, That we respectfully propose to the 
general bodies of our brethren of other denomi- 
nations to select representative scholars who 
shall consider and seek to determine just what is 
the teaching of the Bible on the leading points 
of difference of doctrine and polity between the 
denominations, in the hope that they can at least 
help to a better understanding of the issues in- 
volved; also 

' 'Resolved, That we heartily favor that the re- 
sults of the proposed conference of representa- 
tive scholars be widely published in all denomi- 
national papers so that the Christian public can 
be thoroughly informed concerning these re- 
sults, and that progress may be made toward 
true Christian union." 

As long as this invitation remains unaccepted 
no one has a right to declare that we are unchar- 



12 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

itable and illiberal. This can not be true: for 
we are not only in favor of toleration, but of the 
widest liberty in all matters of conscience. We 
believe that the civil law has nothing to do with 
religion; and that it is a heaven- given privilege 
for every man to worship according to the dic- 
tates of his own conscience. "We must stand or 
fall before God; and man is not our judge. All 
we ask is that we shall have the same rigb t to 
worship God that we cheerfully grant to others. 
We have been pioneers in this work. ' ' Freedom 
of conscience," says Mr. Bancroft, the brilliant 
historian of the United States, " unlimited free- 
dom of mind, was, from the first, the trophy of 
the Baptists." 

For the wonderful change that has taken place 
in England, Dr. Schaff gives the credit to the 
Baptists. "For this change of public senti- 
ment," says he, "the chief merit is due to the 
English Non-conformists, who in the school of 
persecution became advocates of toleration, 
especially to the Baptists and Quakers, who 
made religious liberty (within the limits of the 
golden rule) an article of their creed so that they 
could not consistently persecute even if they 
should ever have a chance to do so." (Creeds of 
Christ., vol. 1, p. 803.) 

The historian, Skeats, who was not a Baptist, 
records these strong words: "It is the singular 
and the distinguished honor of the Baptists to 



IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 13 

have repudiated, from their earliest history, all 
coercive power over the consciences and actions 
of men with reference to religion. No sentence 
is to be found in all of their writings inconsist- 
ent with these principles of Christian liberty and 
willinghood which are now equally dear to all of 
the free Congregational churches of England. 
They were the photo- evangelists of the volun- 
tary principle. " (History of the Free Churches 
of England, p. 24.) 

So strikingly correct and sympathetic are the 
words of Gervinus, the most astute and philo- 
sophic of the German historians of this century, 
that I present them here. He says: "In accord- 
ance with these principles Roger "Williams in- 
sisted, in Massachusetts, upon allowing entire 
freedom of conscience, and upon the entire sepa- 
ration of the Church and the State. But he was 
obliged to flee, and in 1636 he formed in Rhode 
Island a small and new society, in which perfect 
freedom in matters of faith was allowed, and in 
which the majority ruled in all civil affairs. 
Here in a little State, the fundamental principles 
of political and ecclesiastical liberty practically 
prevailed, before they were ever taught in any 
of the schools of philosophy in Europe. At that 
time people predicted only a short existence of 
these democratical experiments: universal suf- 
frage, universal eligibility to office, the annual 
change of rulers, perfect religious freedom — 



14 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

the Miltonian doctrines of schisms. But not 
only have these ideas and these foi'ms of govern- 
ment maintained themselves here, but precisely 
from this little State have they extended them- 
selves throughout the United States. They have 
conquered the aristocratic tendencies in Carolina, 
and New York, the High Church in Virginia, the 
Theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy 
in all America. They have given laws to a con- 
tinent, and formidable through their moral in- 
fluence, they lie at the bottom of all the demo- 
cratic movements which are now shaking the 
nations of Europe." 

I shall venture to quote the complimentary 
letter of George Washington to the Baptists. He 
says: "I have often expressed my sentiments 
that every man conducting himself as a good 
citizen, and being accountable alone to God for 
his religious opinions, ought to be protected in 
worshipping according to the dictates of his own 
conscience, while I recollect, with satisfaction, 
that the religious society of which you are mem- 
bers have been throughout America, uniformly 
and almost unanimously the firm friends of civil 
liberty, and the preserving promoters of our 
glorious revolution, I can not hesitate to believe 
that they will be faithful supporters of a free, 
yet efficient, general government. Under this- 
pleasing expectation, I rejoice to assure them, 
that they may rely on my best wishes and en- 
deavors to advance their prosperity." 



IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 15 

I can not believe that people who thus love 
liberty, and contend for the widest freedom of 
thought and worship, will be either uncharitable 
or illiberal. We must look for some other reason 
for Close Communion. 

The last cry is that the Baptists are ignorant. 
We freely confess that we have among us more 
ignorance than has ever done us any good. But 
the denomination that can not reach the igno- 
rant and the poor lacks one of the essential fea- 
tures of a church of Christ. There are those, 
however, who appear honestly to believe that 
we hold to Close Communion through sheer igno- 
rance. While it is a fact that among our millions 
we have many unlettered people, it is equally a 
fact that in scholarly attainments and educa- 
tional facilities we occupy no mean place. I 
quote the tribute of the great Presbyterian, Dr. 
Chalmers, to the English Baptists. He evidently 
thought they had done something for the world. 
He says : ' ' Let it never be forgotten of the Par- 
ticular Baptists of England, that they form the 
denomination of Puller and Carey and Ryland 
and Hall and Poster; that they have organized 
among the greatest of all missionary enterprises; 
that they have enriched the Christian literature 
of our country with authorship of the most ex- 
alted piety, as well as with the first talent, and 
the first eloquence; that they have waged a very 
noble and successful war with the hydra of Anti-- 



16 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

nomianisni; that perhaps there is not a more in- 
tellectual community of ministers in our islands, 
or who have put forth to their number a greater 
amount of mental power and mental activity in 
the defence and illustration of our common faith; 
and, what is better than all of the triumphs of 
genius or understanding, who by their zeal and 
fidelity and pastoral labor among congregations 
which they have reared, have done more to swell 
the list of genuine discipleship in the walks of 
private society — and thus to both uphold and 
extend the living Christianity of our nation." 
(Com. Romans, Lee. 14, p. 76.) 

In the United States the Baptists are in the 
front rank in providing educational facilities. 
Our ministers in scholarly ability are second to 
none; and our schools are of the very best. We 
have always been the advocates of education. 
The oldest and largest University in the United 
States is Harvard. The first money it ever re- 
ceived for an endowment was from a Baptist; 
and the Hollis family — Baptists — were among its 
most munificent benefactors. Its first two Presi- 
dents, Henry Dunster and Charles Chausey, were 
Baptists. President Quincey said of them: "For 
learning and talents they have been surpassed 
by no one of their successors." The Baptists 
assisted Franklin in laying the foundations of 
the University of Pennsylvania, and have been 
among the first in their support of all State 



IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 17 

schools. As early a 1764, when numbering in all 
America only 60 churches and about 5,000 mem- 
bers, the Baptists founded their first college. 
Brown University of Rhode Island. Now they 
have 28 chartered colleges, over 200 academies 
and female colleges, and 9 theological semina- 
ries. In less than five years they have founded 
a university in Chicago, upon a wider plane than 
any school in America, with an endowment al- 
ready little less than four millions of dollars. 
Nearly all of our colleges have recently added 
largely to their endowment funds. We have one 
man, Mr. J. D. Rockefeller, who has given nearly 
three millions of dollars for education. 

The Baptists have 70 newspapers in the United 
States and not a few quarterlies and reviews. 

In writers they have been second to none. 
The book that has reached a wider circulation 
than any other except the Bible, and has been 
translated into every tongue of earth, was writ- 
ten by a Baptist, John Bunyan. John Milton, 
author of Paradise Lost, was a Baptist. Macau- 
lay calls these two the original minds of their 
century. Gill has not been surpassed as a com- 
mentator; and indeed time would fail us to speak 
of the multitude that we could mention with 
propriety. 

All this and more has been frankly conceded 
by others. 

Dr. Baird, in his great work, Religion in 



18 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

America, p. 463, says: "The ministry of the Bap- 
tists comprehends a body of men who, in point 
of talent, learning and eloquence, as well as de- 
voted piety, have no superiors in this country." 

Dr. T. L. Cuyler recently said of the Baptists 
in Philadelphia and elsewhere: "They are a 
powerful body in Philadelphia. Let us thank 
God that their great army corps all over the land 
are so stoutly loyal to sound doctrine and evan- 
gelical doctrine and progress." 

The late Dr. Woods, of Andover, thus expressed 
himself: "I entertain the most cordial esteem, 
love and confidence toward the Baptists as a de- 
nomination. I have the freest intercourse, and 
the sincerest friendship with Baptist ministers, 
theological students, and private Christians. I 
have wished that our denomination — the Congre- 
gationalist — was as free from erratic specula- 
tions, and as well grounded in the doctrines and 
experimental principles of the Puritans as the 
Baptists. It seems to me that they are the Chris- 
tians who are likely to maintain pure Christian- 
ity, and to hold fast the form of sound words." 

Dr. Hase, the German historian, says : ' ' They 
agree with, and even exceed the Congregational- 
ists in their rejection of all human authority in 
matters of faith, and in their practical mainte- 
nance of the independence of the congregation." 
(Hist, of Christ. Ch., p. 603.) 

The Baptists have taken the lead in modern. 



IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE. 19 

times in the cause of Foreign Missions and in the 
founding of Bible societies. In 1792, under Carey, 
they formed the first missionary society of mod- 
ern times to preach the gospel to the heathen. 
When Carey made the proposition to send the 
gospel to India Dr. Ryland was so astounded at 
its audacity that he sprang to his feet and or- 
dered Carey to sit down, saying: "When God 
pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it with- 
out your aid or mine. " But the Baptist cobbler 
became the forerunner of the mighty mission 
work of to-day. 

The Rev. J. L. Withrow recently said: "The 
Baptist church is in repute for thorough-going 
piety; a piety which takes the Bible as God's 
book, rather than as a book with some stray 
breaths of God through it, no one being sure 
where to find them ; a piety which grasps the doc- 
trines of justifying and sanctifying and glorify- 
ing grace with a grip which holds as a vice; a 
piety which one hundred years ago, before any 
other Protestant soul or society began it, arose 
to the divinest enterprises of Christianity, the 
enterprises of sending the gospel to all the ends 
of the earth. It was Baptist piety which did 
that. It was Baptist believers who began that 
monthly concert of prayer for Foreign Missions 
which has been heaping up prayers before the 
throne of God for a century, and adding to them 
every month petitions by the million! What a 



20 CLOSE COMMUXIOX. 

ctiTirch it is to the glory of the Son of God and 
the good of this needy "world I " 

As an outgrowth of this mission work, in 180-4, 
the British and Foreign Bible Society was 
formed. Joseph Hughes, a Baptist minister, 
bore the most prominent part in its organization. 
As one has quaintly put it : • •' He was the hands 
and feet, as he had been the head of the insti- 
tution. " 

I think with all of these facts before me, that 
none of these are the reasons that Baptists have 
for believing in, and practicing. Close Commun- 
ion. It is not held by them on account of igno- 
rance, bigotry or selfishness. It may be that 
their practice is founded upon the Scriptures. 



THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 21 



CHAPTER II. 

THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED AND DEFENDED 
BY THE SCRIPTURES. 

THE Baptists are strict communionists and 
are likely to remain such. We want to be 
just as close as the Word of God. If we have 
prospered as a people, it is because we have 
rigidly adhered to the Word of God. Whenever 
we turn aside from this well-trodden path for 
mere sentimentality or transient popularity, the 
day of our power and usefulness is gone. We 
are compelled to search for the old paths, and 
when we have found them to walk in them. 
Despite all criticisms and abuse we have pros- 
pered as strict communionists. The reason is 
not far away. In the face of all clamor we have 
adhered to God's Word and God has greatly 
honored us. What he has done in the past he 
will do in the future. There is neither argument 
nor wisdom in open communion. It is based 
upon mere sentiment, and that a false sentiment. 
We are strict communionists and we are going 
to remain strict. 

This is freely admitted by Rev. J. L. Withrow, 
Presbyterian, in an able article in the Interior. 



22 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

He says: ' ' Furthermore, in their favor it is to be 
said, they have proved, beyond perstdventure, 
that narrow church doors and severe communion 
conditions do not bar people out of the Christian 
church. Against creeds and communion bars 
there is ceaseless outcry from some quarters. 
The Baptists have no chaptered creed, but their 
unwritten creed, as England's unwritten consti- 
tution, is more insurmountable than the Thirty - 
nine Articles of Episcopacy, or the ponderous 
chapters of the Westminster Confession. Against 
chaptered creeds the complaints are so urgent 
that Congregationalists have recently made a 
new one — you may safely offer a dollar for every 
new convert which has been captured by that 
new creed who otherwise would not have been 
secured. And now the Presbyterians are wast- 
ing a heap of hard-earned money (contributed, 
much of it, by God's poor for better purposes), 
and are stirring bad blood between the brethren 
in an attempt to smooth off and sweeten up their 
creed. The claim is that we keep people out of 
the church, and candidates out of our ministry 
with such strict conditions as now exist. It 
sounds like arrant nonsense in presence of the 
fact that the Baptist church is the strictest 
church we have; and yet it is growing — not as a 
weed, but as the Word of God is promised to 
grow. There is no church, so far as we know, 
into which it is more difficult to enter than the 



THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 23 

Baptist through theological, ecclesiastical and 
ceremonial conditions. And yet there are 
throngs pressing through its narrow threshold. 
Whoever cares to study this subject of easy and 
exacting conditions of church membership, ask- 
ing which is most likely to secure accessions to 
the fellowship of professing Christians, should 
compare the history of the Baptist church with 
that of the liberal churches, so-called." 

The practice of restricted communion is no 
arbitrary affair with us. We think the Lord has 
laid down in the New Testament certain 

PREREQUISITES TO THE COMMUNION. 

We think the Scriptures warrant definite terms 
of approach to the Lord's Supper. The divine 
order is, first, faith; second, baptism; third, 
church membership; fourth, discipline; fifth, 
doctrine; sixth, the Lord's Supper. No man has 
a right to the Lord's table who has not exercised 
faith, been baptized, and is a member of the 
church, subject to its discipline, and agreeing 
ivith it in doctrine. This is so important that I 
shall illustrate and defend it from a number of 
standpoints. 

The Lord Jesus himself instituted the Supper. 
A record of this event is given in Matthew 
26:26-30: "And as they were eating, Jesus took 
iDread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to 
the disciples, and said. Take, eat; this is my 



24 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, 
and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 
for this is my blood of the new testament, which 
is shed for many for the remission of sins. But 
I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of 
this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink 
it new with you in my Father's kingdom. And 
when they had sung a hymn, they went out into 
the mount of Olives. " 

We have no right to change a qualification. 
Were these disciples baptized ? There is no doubt 
about it. Robert Hall, the foremost defender of 
open communion, admits this. He says: "It is 
almost certain that some, probably the most of 
them, had been baptized by John." (Works, vol. 
1, p. 303.) In the Gospel of John at least four 
of the disciples were declared to be disciples of 
John the Baptist. (1:36-40.) Jesus also made 
and baptized disciples. (John 4:1.) It is not 
reasonable to suppose that Jesus would have se- 
lected men to represent himself, who had refused 
to obey the first and plainest command of the 
Gospel. "The practice of the first Christian 
church," says Knapp, "confirms the point that 
the baptism of John was considered essentially 
the same with Christian baptism. For those who 
acknowledged that they had professed, by the 
baptism of John, to believe in Jesus as the 
Christ, and who in consequence of this had be- 
come in fact his disciples, and had believed in 



THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 25 

him, were not, in a single instance, baptized 
again into Christ, because this was considered as 
having been already done. Hence we do not find 
that any apostle or any other disciple of Jesus 
was the second time baptized; not even that 
ApoUos mentioned in Acts xviii:25, because he 
had before believed in Jesus Christ, although he 
had received only the baptism of John. " (Christ. 
Theol., p. 485.) 

But the Scriptures do not leave us in doubt on 
this subject. When an apostle was to be chosen 
in the place of Judas Iscariot, he was required to 
be a disciple of John, as were the rest of the 
apostles. I quote Acts 1:21,22: '' Wherefore of 
those men which have accompanied with us all 
the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out 
among us, J)eginning from the 'baptism of John, unto 
that same day that he was taken up from us, 
must one be ordained to be a witness with us of 
his resurrection." 

This passage undoubtedly teaches that an 
apostle must have been a disciple of John. In 
fact this is made an absolute qualification. This 
interpretation is sustained by the foremost 
scholars. 

Alexander, Presbyterian, says : ' ' The idea evi- 
dently is, that the candidate must not only have 
believed Christ's doctrines and submitted to his 
teaching, as a disciple in the widest sense, but 
formed a part of that more permanent body, 



'2Q CLOSE COMMUNION. 

which appears to have attended him from place 
to place, throughout the whole course of his 
public ministry." (Acts of the Apostles Expl.) 

Gloag says: "In these verses Peter assigns 
the necessary qualifications of the new apostle. 
He must have associated with them during all of 
the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out 
among them; that is, during the whole of his 
public ministry. He states the commencement 
of that period to be the baptism of John, and its 
termination to be the day of the ascension." 
(Crit. and Exeget. Com. on Acts.) 

Burkitt says: "That is one who had followed 
Christ from his baptism to his ascension." 

Adam Clarke, Methodist, says: "They judged 
it necessary to fill up this blank in the aposto- 
late, by a person who had been an eye witness of 
the acts of our Lord. Went in and out. A phrase 
which includes all the actions of life. Beginning 
from the baptism of John. From the time that 
Christ was baptised by John in Jordan; for it 
was at that time that his public ministry prop- 
erly began." (Com., vol. 3, p. 694.) 

Barnes, Presbyterian, says: "The word 'be- 
ginning from ' in the original refers to the Lord 
Jesus. The meaning may be thus expressed, 
' during the time in which the Lord Jesus, be- 
ginning (his ministry) at the time he was bap- 
tized by John, went in and out among us, until 
the time in which he was taken up,' etc. From 



THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 27 

those who had during that time been the constant 
companions of the Lord Jesus must one be 
taken, who would thus be a witness of his whole 
ministry." 

It is no answer to assert that John's baptism 
was not Christian baptism; for beyond doubt 
this was all the baptism Christ ever received, 
and none of the persons baptized by John were 
ever rebaptized. It answers every requirement 
•of the Lord Jesus and we ought to be satisfied. 
"The object of John's baptism," says Knapp, 
"was the same of that of Christian; and from 
this it may be at once concluded that it did not 
•differ essentially from the latter. John exhorted 
the persons baptized by him to repentance and 
to faith in the Messiah who was shortly to ap- 
pear, and make these duties obligatory upon 
them by this rite. And as soon as Jesus pub- 
licly appeared, John asserted in the most forci- 
ble manner that he was the Messiah, and so re- 
•quired of all whom he had then or before bap- 
tized, that they should believe in Jesus as the 
Messiah. Now in Christian baptism, repentance 
and faith in Jesus as the Messiah are likewise 
the principal things which are required on the 
part of the subjects of this rite. " (Christ. Theol. , 
p. 485.) 

Turrettin maintains with great learning and 
force that ' ' the baptism of John was the same 
essentially with that of Christ," or Christian 
iDaptism. 



28 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Calvin says : ' ' This makes it perfectly certain 
that the ministry of John was the very same as 
that which was afterwards delegated to the 
apostles. For the different hands by which bap- 
tism is administered do not make it a different 
baptism, but sameness of doctrine proves it to be 
the same. John and the apostles agreed in one 
doctrine. Both baptized unto repentance, both 
for the remission of sins, both in the name of 
Christ, from whom repentance and remission of 
sins proceed. John pointed to him as the Lamb 
of God who taketh away the sin of the world, 
thus describing him as the victim accepted of 
the Father, the propitiation of righteousness, 
and the author of salvation. "What could the 
apostles add to this confession? " (Inst. Christ. 
Eelig., vol. 3, pp. 332, 333.) 

We are not, therefore, left in doubt about bap- 
tism preceding the Lord's Supper. 

You will also notice that in the celebration of 
this first Supper there was no one present except 
the twelve apostles. His mother was not there; 
Mary, Martha and Lazarus were not present; 
the seventy were not admitted, indeed there were 
no other participants, and no spectators. There 
was no foolish sentimentality about this observ- 
ance. Not one argument that open commun- 
ionists urge can be based upon the institution of 
the Supper by Jesus. 

This is the teaching of the great commission. 



THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 29 

Matthew 28:19,20, states: "Go, ye therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them into the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost; teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with 
you alway, even unto the end of the world." I 
love to go back to foundation principles, and 
learn what Christ has commanded, and then I 
know how to obey. By this law we are required 
in the first place, to teach or preach the Gospel; 
secondly, to baptize those who believe; and 
thirdly, to instruct such baptized believers to 
observe all things whatsoever Christ has com- 
manded; and the order in which these several 
duties are here stated, is as imperative as the 
duties themselves. 

This argument is so important, and the logic 
of Dr. Hibbard, the Methodist writer, so just, 
that I transcribe a paragraph from him. ' ' The 
reader will perceive," says he, "that the argu- 
ment is based entirely upon the order of the 
apostolic commission. It may be questioned by 
some whether the argument is genuine, and 
whether it is entitled to any considerable force. 
But suppose we assume an opposite ground? 
Suppose we say that the things commanded are 
important to be done, but the order observed in 
the commission is a subject of indifference. Now 
what will be the consequences of this position ? 
What but total and irretrievable confusion? The 



30 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

apostles go forth; they are intent upon doing all 
that Christ commanded them, but the order of 
the duties is a subject of indifference. The con- 
sequence is that some are baptized before they 
are converted from heathenism; some receive the 
holy supper before either baptism or conversion; 
others are engaged in a course of instruction be- 
fore they are discipled; and the most incoherent 
and unsuitable practices everywhere prevail. 
Improper persons are baptized, or baptism is im- 
properly delayed; the holy supper is approached 
before the candidate is duly prepared, and it is 
therefore desecrated, or it is unduly withheld 
from rightful communicants. Is not the pre- 
scribed ORDER, therefore, in the administration 
of the ordinances, and the duties of the apostolic 
commission, all important? And thus we hold 
that Christ enjoined the order as well as the duties 
themselves; and, in this order of Christ, baptism 
precedes communion at the Lord's table." (Hib- 
bard on Bapt., P. 2, p. 177.) 

The custom of the apostles is in line with the 
commands of Christ. The divine order is beau- 
tifully set forth in Acts 2 :41, 42 : " Then they that 
gladly received the word were baptized : and the 
same day there were added unto them three 
thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly 
in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in 
breaking of bread and in prayers." The order is, 
teaching, gladly receiving the word, baptism, 



THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 31. 

and the Lord's Supper. The Syriac, the oldest 
existing translation of the New Testament so 
understands this passage. 

Calvin says : " I would have breaking of bread 
understood of the Lord's Supper." (Com. on 
Acts.) 

Blount, Episcopalian, says: "I consider 'the 
fellowship ' or ' communion ' and ' the breaking of 
bread ' to stand in close combination, and to in- 
dicate that another bond by which these first. 
Christians were joined to the apostles, to one 
another, and to a unity in Christ, was a collective 
participation in the Lord's Supper." (Christ. Ch. 
First Three Cent.) 

Baumgarten, Presbyterian, says: "The third 
characteristic that is noticed in respect to the 
baptized is the breaking of bread. The com- 
munion of the Lord with his disciples may very 
properly be characteristic that the disciples who, 
after his resurrection, had recognized him nei- 
ther by his form nor by his discourse, imme- 
diately knew him upon his breaking of bread 
with them. This mode of communion was there- 
by consecrated; and appears as the proper me- 
dium of a community which lived together as 
one family." (Com. Acts of Apos.) 

Burkitt says : ' 'Another religious office which 
they continued constant, was the breaking of 
bread; that is, receiving the sacrament." 

Bengel says: "The Lord's Supper is included, 
in this expression. " (Gnomon of New Test.) 



32 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Every instance of baptism in the New Testa- 
ment confirms this view. The first duty after re- 
pentance and faith was baptism. As soon as the 
Samaritans believed the things Phihp preached 
they were baptized both men and women. (Acts 
8:12.) The eunuch was baptized at once upon a 
profession of his faith. (Acts 8:36,37.) As soon 
as the scales fell from the eyes of Paul he was 
baptized (Acts 9:18); and the Philipian jailer was 
baptized the same hour of the night in which he 
believed. (Acts 16:33.) In none of these cases 
was there any time to celebrate the Lord's Sup- 
per between a profession of faith and baptism. 

I read in Acts 20:7: "And upon the first day of 
the week the disciples came together to break 
bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart 
on the morrow; and continued his speech until 
midnight." The Syriac version, and well nigh 
all commentators agree that this passage refers 
to the observance of the Lord's Supper. We 
know that none but disciples were present, for 
the passage distinctly says this. 

Gloag says: "That is to celebrate the Lord's 
Supper." 

Paul in writing to the Corinthian church says : 
' ' For first of all when we come together in the 
church, I hear that there be divisions among 
you; and I partly believe it. For I have received 
of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, 
That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he 



THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 33 

was betrayed took bread; and when he had given 
thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my 
body, which is broken for yon: this do in remem- 
brance of me. After the same manner also he took 
the cup, when he had supped saying, This cup is 
the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft 
as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as 
often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye 
do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore 
whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this 
cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of 
the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man 
examine himself, and so let him eat of that 
bread, and drink of that cup." 

Paul distinctly says he was addressing the 
church, verse 18, at Corinth. There is not a 
word said about outsiders. Indeed the whole of 
this epistle is in regard to disorderly members in 
the Corinthian church. This passage proves be- 
yond doubt that the Lord's Supper is a church 
ordinance. 

In chapter 12:12,13 Paul says that baptism 
precedes the Lord's Supper. Says he : " For as 
the body is one, and hath many members, and all 
the members of that one body, being many, are 
one body; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit 
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be 
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; 
and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." 

The argument is clear. They have all been 



34 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

baptized into the one body or church; and they 
have been made to "drink," or participate of the 
Lord's Supper, into one Spirit. Bloomfield says 
of this passage: "This is the interpretation 
adopted by almost all commentators, ancient and 
modern, ^ho here suppose an allusion to the 
two sacraments." 

Olshausen says: "The allusion in this passage 
to X. 1, seq. is unmistakable, so that we may see 
the epotistheemen points to the communion." 
(Com., vol 4, p. 346.) 

Burkitt says: "By baptism we were admitted 
into his church; and this union of ours, one with 
another, is testified and declared by our com- 
munion at the Lord's table, which is here called 
a drinking into the Spirit." 

Dr. Charles Hodge says : ' ' The allusion is sup- 
posed by Luther, Calvin, and Beza to be to the 
Lord's Supper." 

Van Oosterzee, Presbyterian, says: "It is 
worthy of notice that baptism and the Supper 
are at least once mentioned by him in one breath, 
and placed upon a level." (Theol. of New Test., 
p. 328.) 

MacKnight says : ' ' For indeed with the gifts 
of one Spirit, we all have been baptized into one 
body, or church, whether Jews or Gentiles, 
whether slaves or freemen, and all are equally 
entitled to the privileges of that one body, and 
derive equal honor from them ; and all have been 



J 



THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 35 

made to drink in the Lord's Supper of one Spirit 
of faith and love, by which the one body is ani- 
mated." 

The priority of baptism to the Lord's Supper 
is likewise taught in 1 Cor. 10:1-3. The passage 
reads : ' ' Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye 
should be ignorant, how that all of our fathers 
were under the cloud, and all passed through 
the sea; and were all baptized into Moses in the 
cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same, 
spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spirit- 
ual drink." 

Olshausen says: ''Thus in this passage the' 
history of Israel is typically conceived as refer- 
ring to the sacramental rites of baptism and the 
Lord's Supper, which contain like holy vessels 
all the blessings of the gospels; and thus in this 
very passage lies a powerful argument for these 
two sacraments." (Com., vol. 4, p. 308.) 

Meyer says : ' ' Just as all receive the self same 
type of baptism (verses 1,2), so too all were par- 
takers of one and the same analogue of the 
Christian ordinance of the Supper, so that each 
one therefore stood on the very same level of 
apparent certainty of not being cast off by God. " 

Bishop EUicott says: "The spiritual food re- 
ferred to was, it hardly need to be said, that 
which typified one part of the other sacrament. " 

Godet says: "As the holy Supper serves to 
maintain in salvation those who have entered. 



36 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

into it by the faith professed in baptism, so the 
Israelites also received, after the initial deliver- 
ance, the favors necessary to their preservation. 
These benefits, corresponding to the bread and 
wine of the Supper, were the manna daily re- 
ceived, and the water which God caused to issue 
from a rock in two cases of exceptional dis- 
tress." 

Alf ord says : ' ' They had what answered to one 
Christian sacrament, baptism; now the Apostle 
shows that they were not without a symbolic 
correspondence to the other, the Lord's Supper." 

Dr. Hodge says: "As the miraculous deliver- 
ance and miraculous guidance of the Israelites 
was their baptism, so being miraculously fed was 
their Lord's Supper." 

Stanley says: "This is the natural expression 
for the voluntary pledge involved in Christian 
baptism. The food and drink are parallel to the 
Lord's Supper." 

On this point the authorities are conclusive. 

From these considerations we think the argu- 
ments for baptism as a prerequisite to the Lord's 
Supper are most conclusive. When once this 
proposition is admitted our argument is impreg- 
nable. 

But we can go a step further in this argument. 
We are not only called upon to obey the ordi- 
nances of the Gospel, but we are required to obey 
them in the divine order. The Scriptures are 



THE BAPTIST POSITION STATED. 37 

■unmistakable on this point. Notice the instruc- 
tions to the churches. 

To the church at Corinth Paul writes: ' ' Where- 
fore I beseech you be ye followers of me. For 
this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who 
is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who 
shall bring" you into remembrance of my ways 
which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in 
every church. " (1 Cor. 4 :16, 17.) * ' Be ye followers 
of me, even as I am also of Christ. Now I praise 
you, brethren, that ye remember me in all 
things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered 
them to you." (1 Cor. 11:1,2.) "For I have re- 
ceived of the Lord that which I have delivered 
unto you; " and he immediately gives directions 
in regard to the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23.) 

To the church at Philippi: "Brethren, be fol- 
lowers together of me, and mark them which 
walk so as ye have us for an ensample; " and this 
exhortation: "Let us walk by the same rule, let 
us mind the same thing." (Phil. 3:16,17.) 

To the church at Colosse: "For though I be 
absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the 
Spirit, judging and beholding your order, and 
the steadfastness in the faith. Beware lest any 
man spoil you through philosophy and vain de- 
ceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudi- 
ments of the world, and not after Christ." 
(2:5,8.) 

To the church at Thessalonica : "Therefore, 



38 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions 
which ye have been taught, whether by word or 
our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:15.) "And we have con- 
fidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both 
do and will do the things which we command 
you." (2 Thes. 3:5.) 

No comment on these Scriptures is needed. 
We have no right to vary or change God's com- 
mands. He gave us the divine order and we 
ought to obey him in that order. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 39 



CHAPTER III. 

THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 

THE Greek and Latin fathers are quite ex- 
plicit upon the relative position of baptism 
:and the Lord's Supper. As far as I have ob- 
served there is no difference of opinion among 
them on the subject. I will let them speak for 
themselves. 

Justin Martyr, second century, says: "This 
food is called among us the eucharist, of which 
no one is allowed to partake but the man who 
believes that the things which we teach are true, 
and who has been washed with the washing that 
is for the remission of sins, and unto regenera- 
tion, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 
For not as common bread and common drink do 
we receive these. " (Apol. 1 c. Ixvi. Patrologise, 
Migne, vol. 6, p. 427.) 

The second canon of the Council of Antioch, 
344, orders that those who came into the church 
and heard the service, so far as the lections of 
Scripture, but declined to partake in the prayers 
of the people or to communicate, should be cast 
out of the church until they should have pro- 
fessed and repented of their fault." (Canon 
Apost., c. 9 (10). Hefele's Hist. Councils, vol. 2, 
p. 67.) 






40 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

The second Coiiiicil of Carthage says: "jSTo 
stranger shall be admitted to receive the com- 
munion in another church, without a letter of 
recommendation from his own bishop. " (Hef ele's 
Hist. Coun., vol. 2, p. 187.) 

Hippolytus, in the beginning of the third cen- 
tury, in a fragment preser^^ed of his works, 
makes baptism precede the Lord's Supper. 
Dollinger also gives this account of a work of 
Hippolytus: "In a small treatise, in which he 
castigates and exhorts the Jews, he depicts the 
marvelous spectacle of Israel pressing, humbled 
and penitent, to receive baptism, and begging 
for the food of grace — the Blessed Bread. " (Hip- 
polytus and Callistus, p. 319.) 

The learned Baron Bunsen, in commenting on 
Hippolytus and his times, says: "Catechetical 
instruction, as a general rule, was limited to 
three years ; so that the catechumen, after hav- 
ing completed the first year satisfactorily, might 
be permitted to hear the Word of God and the 
sermon; at the conclusion of which, after solemn 
prayer and the blessing, he was dismissed before 
the worship of the believers, the ser^^ice of the 
general congregation, commenced. Nothing can 
be more natural; for the celebration of the Lord's 
Supper was the solemn act of the believers and 
implied reception into the Christian community, 
of which it was intended to be the sacred symbol. 
* * * No one can take part in the solemn cere- 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 41 

mony of a close society, except one who has been 
received into it. To have allowed it would have 
been a contradiction in terms. " (Hippolytus and 
His Age, vol. 2, p. 108.) 

Cyril of Jerusalem, 347, says: "After the bap- 
tism followed the holy communion, of which all 
the newly baptized were partakers, therein be- 
coming ' of one body and of one blood ' and there 
partaking of a heavenly bread, and of a cup of 
salvation, that sanctify both soul and body." 
(Myst. Catch, iv. Patrologise, vol. 33, p. 1102.) 

Origin says: "It doth not belong to every one 
to eat of this bread, and to drink of this cup." 
(Com. in Joan., vol. 2, p. 345.) 

Jerome, the most learned of the fathers, 400, 
says : ' ' Catechumens cannot communicate at the 
Lord's table, being unbaptized." (Patrologise, 
vol. 22, p. 658.) 

Augustine, 400, speaking of administering bap- 
tism to infants, says: "Of which certainly they 
cannot partake unless they are baptized." (Ani- 
madversionest.ii. AlsoDePecat. Remiss, lib. i.) 

The Didache says: "But let no one eat or 
drink of your eucharist, except those baptized 
into the name of the Lord; for as regards this also 
the Lord has said: Give not that which is holy to 
the dogs." (Didache, C. ix, sec. 5.) 

In the Recognitions of Clement I read : ' ' For 
he who wished soon to be baptized is separated 
but a little time, but he for a longer who wishes 



I 



42 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 



to be baptized later. Every one therefore has it 
in his own power to demand a shorter or longer 
time for his repentance; and therefore it lies 
with you, when you wish it, to come to our table; 
and not with us, who are not permitted to take 
food with any one who has not been baptized. " 
(Recog., B. ii, C. Ixxii. Patrologise, vol. 1, p. 
1282.) 

The Apostolic Constitutions say: "But if he 
afterwards repents, and turns from his error, 
then, as we receive the heathen, when they wish 
to repent, into the church indeed to hear the 
word, but do not receive them to communion 
until they have received the seal of baptism, and 
are made complete Christians; so we do not per- 
mit such as these to enter only to hear, until they 
show the fruit of repentance, that by hearing 
the word they may not utterly and irrevocably 
be lost." (Apos. Con., B. 2, sec. 5, c. xxxix. Pa- 
trologiae, vol. 1, p. 694.) 

Dr. Phihp Schaff commenting on this says that 
the Apostolic Constitutions ' ' lay great stress on 
the exclusion of unbelievers from the eucharist. " 
(Teaching, p. 193.) 

Jobius says: " We are baptized, annointed, and 
then thought worthy of the precious blood." 
(Bollinger's Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 2, p. 324.) 

In the life of Basil it is recorded that: ''Max- 
imus, the bishop, baptized him an Eubulus, and 
clothed them with white garments, and, annoint- 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 43 

ing them with the holy chrism, gave them, the 
-communion." (Amphiloch., vit. Basil, cap. v.) 

TertuUian, the first of the Latin fathers, says: 
' ' To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin 
with baptism. When we are going to enter the 
water, but a little before, in the presence of the 
congregation, and under the hand of the presi- 
dent, we solemnly profess that we disown the 
•devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon 
we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat 
ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the 
gospel. ^ * * Then we also, in congregations 
before daybreak, and from the hand of none but 
the president, receive the sacrament of the eu- 
charist, which the Lord both commanded to be 
eaten at meal times, and enjoined to be taken by 
all alike." (De Corona, c. 3. Patrologise, vol. 1, 
p. 98.) 

Bede, A. D. 613, says: "If you will be baptized 
into the salutary fountain as your father was, 
you may also partake of the Lord's Supper as he 
did; but if you despise the former, ye cannot in 
any wise receive the latter." (Eccl. Hist., lib. ii, 
cap. V. Patrologise, vol. 95.) 

Theophylact, A. D. 1100, says: "No unbap- 
tized person partakes of the Lord's Supper." 
(On Math. 14.) 

Bona Ventura, 1200, says: "Faith, indeed, is 
necessary to all of the sacraments, but especially 
to the reception of baptism, because baptism is 



I 



44 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

the first among the sacraments." (Apud Forbe- 
sinm, Instruct. Historic. Theolog., lib x, cap. 
iv. 9.) 

We can reach the same conclusion that baptism 
precedes communion from another standpoint. 
The word mass, which is now used to designate 
the communion in the Catholic church, origi- 
nated in the ancient church, in the dismissal of 
the unbaptized from the congregation before the 
observance of the Lord's Supper. Dr. Schaff 
says of this word: "The name missa (from which 
our mass is derived) occurs first in Augustine 
and in the acts of the council of Carthage, A. D. 
398. It arose from the formula of dismission at 
the close of each part of the service, and is 
equivalent to missio, dismissio. Augustine (Serm. 
49, c. 8) : ' Take notice, after the sermon, the dis- 
missal (missa) of the catechumens takes place; 
the faithful will remain. ' Afterwards missa came 
to designate exclusively the communion service. 
In the Greek church leitourgia or litourgia, ser- 
vice, is the precise equivalent of missa.^^ (Hist. 
Christ. Ch., vol. 2, p. 232, note.) 

But we need not appeal to Dr. Schaff, as we 
have the original authorities before us. Thus, by 
the Council of Carthage, 398: "That the bishop 
forbid no one to enter the church and hear the 
"Word of God, be he Gentile, or heretic, or Jew, 
until the dismissal (missam) of the catechumens. " 
(Can. 84.) Augustine about the same time makes 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 45 

a similar statement as I have quoted from 
Dr. SchafC. Cassia, A. D. 424, speaks of one who 
was overheard while alone to preach a sermon, 
and then to ' ' give out the dismissal of the cate- 
chumens as the deacon does." (Coenob. Instit., 
xi. 15.) The Council of Valentia, 524: ''That the 
gospel be read before the mass of the catechu- 
mens." (Can. 1.) The Council of Lerida in the 
same year decreed that persons living in incest 
should be allowed to remain in the church only 
to the mass of the catechumens." (Can. 4.) The 
formula of dismission in the Latin church was: 
' ' If there be any catechumens here let them go 
out." (Scudmore's Notitia Eucharista, p. 336, 
ed. 2.) 

The Apostolic Constitutions read: "But let 
them not be admitted to communion in prayer; 
and let them depart after the reading of the law, 
and the prophets, and the Gospel, that by such 
departure they may be made better in their 
course of life, by endeavoring to meet every day 
about the public assemblies, and to be frequent 
in prayer, that they may at length be admitted, 
and that those who behold them may be affected, 
and be more secured by fearing to fall into the 
same condition." (B. ii, c. xl.) 

Lyman Coleman, a noted Presbyterian Archso- 
ologist, says upon this passage: "It appears from 
the Apostolic Constitutions, that after the doors 
had been carefully closed and a guard set, the 



46 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

deacon made a public proclamation of the differ- 
ent classes of persons who were not permitted ta 
be present on the occasion. These were the first 
and second classes of catechumens, the unbe- 
lievers, Jews and pagans, and reputed heretics 
and separatists of every description. The peni- 
tents and inergumens are not here mentioned, 
but it appears from other sources that they were 
not permitted to be present at the Lord's table. 
None indeed but believers in full communion 
with the church were permitted to be present. 
All such, originally, partook of the sacrament." 
(Antiq. Christ. Ch., pp. 308, 309.) 

The above extracts prove conclusively that the 
unbaptized were not permitted at the Lord's 
Supper. The most scholarly writers admit that 
this was the practice of the primitive church. 

Prof. Samuel Cheetham, Episcopalian, saysr 
"Conditions of admission to holy communion. 
Communicants must be baptized persons, not 
under censure. None could be admitted to holy 
communion but baptized persons lying under no 
censure. The competency of ordinary members 
of the church would be known as a matter of 
course to the clergy administering the sacra- 
ment. Persons from a distance were required 
to produce certificates from their own bishops 
that they were in the peace of the church, before 
they could be admitted to holy communion. 
Some have thought that the expression communio 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 47 

peregrina designates the state of those strangers 
who, being unprovided with such letters, were 
admitted to be present at divine service, but not 
to communicate." (Diet. Christ. Antiq., vol. 1, 
p. 417.) 

Bishop Stillingfleet, Episcopalian, says: Missa 
' ' was then only taken for the public service of 
the church, so called from the dismission of the 
people after it, with an Ite, missa est; and from 
the different forms of Christians, they had two 
several services, the one called missa catecJiu- 
menorum, because at the end of that the catechu- 
mens were dismissed from the assembly; the 
other missa Jidelium, at which they received the 
Lord's Supper; which afterwards, (the former 
discipline of the church decaying), engrossed 
the name missa to itself." (Irenecum, p. 263.) 

Lord Chancellor King, Episcopalian, says: 
' ' Hence when other parts of divine worship were 
ended, and the celebration of the eucharist was 
to begin, the catechumens, penitents, and all, 
except the communicants, were to depart, as 
TertuUian says thereof : 'Pious initiations drive 
away the profane. ' These being mysteries which 
were to be kept secret and concealed from all, 
except the faithful." (Prim. Ch., p. 243.) 

Dollinger, Catholic, says: ''The doors of the 
church were now closed, and the mass of the 
faithful, who alone remained within, commenced: 
it consisted of three parts, the offertory, the con- 



48 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

secration, and the com in union.'' (Hist. Christ. 
Ch., vol. 2, p. 310.) 

Kurtz, Lutheran, says: •'•'In connection with 
the arrangements about the catechumens, public 
worship was di^i.ded into missa catechumenorum 
and a m issa fidelium. From the latter, all who 
had not been baptized, who were under disci- 
pline, or were possessed by an unclean spirit, 
were excluded." (Church Hist., vol. 1, p. 121.) 

Neander, Lutheran, says: ' •' With ret erence to 
these two constituent portions of the church 
assemblies, the catechumens and baptized be- 
lievers, the whole service was divided into two 
jDortions: one in which the catechumens were 
allowed to join, embracing the reading of the 
Scriptures and the sermon, the prevailing didac- 
tic portion; and the other, in which the baptized 
alone could take part, embracing whatever was 
designated to represent the fellowship of believ- 
ers — communion, and all the prayers of the 
chui'ch which preceded it.*'" (Hist. Christ. Ch., 
vol. 2, pp. 324, 325.) 

Guericke, Lutheran, says : •' ' The ser^i.ce was 
preceded by the call of the deacon, excluding 
catechumens, and all unbelievers, heretics, hj^o- 
crites, unreconciled persons, etc., from partici- 
pating in it." (Manual of Ch. Hist., p. 302.) 

Dr. Schaff, Presbyterian, says: ''The public 
service was di^uded from the middle of the sec- 
ond century down to the close of the fifth, into 






TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 49 

the worship of the catechumens," and the worship 
of the faithful. The former consisted of Scrip- 
ture reading, preaching, prayer and song and was 
open to the unbaptized and persons under pen- 
ance. The latter consisted of the holy commun- 
ion, with its liturgical appendages; none but the 
proper members of the church could attend it; 
and before it began, all catechumens and unbe- 
lievers left the assembly at the order of the dea- 
con, and the doors were closed and guarded." 
(Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 2, p. 232.) 

Here we have the unanimous authority of the 
Fathers that no one was permitted to participate 
in the Lord's Supper who had not been baptized 
and was a member of the church in good stand- 
ing. The celebrated rule of Augustine is in point. 
He says : ' ' What the whole church, through all 
the world does practice, and yet has not been 
instituted in councils, but has been always in 
use, is with very good reason supposed to have 
been settled by the authority of the apostles." 
(Wall's Hist. Infant Bapt., vol. 1, p. 85.) The con- 
clusions from this rule are perfect. No one in all 
antiquity denies that baptism and church mem- 
bership preceded the Lord's Supper. 



50 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 

SCHOLARS of every denomination testify to 
our position that baptism precedes the 
Lord's Supper. There is so much material at 
hand, and so many eminent men to select from, 
that I am embarrassed in having to choose a few 
witnesses. These men represent the scholarship 
of the world, and are worthy of a hearing. I 
present, 

1. Writers upon history. There is not a stand- 
ard historian, who speaks upon the subject, that 
does not testify that baptism precedes the Lord's 
Supper. Moreover there is not a standard liisto- 
rian who gives any account of open communion for 
the first sixteen hundred years after Christ. But I 
shall let the historians speak. 

The German writers will lead. 

Mosheim says : ' ' Neither those doing penance, 
nor those not yet baptized, were allowed to be 
present at the celebration of this ordinance." 
(Eccl. Hist., vol. 1, p. 189.) 

Neander says: "At this celebration, as maybe 
easily concluded, no one could be present who 
was not a member of the Christian church, and 
incorporated into it by the rite of baptism.'^ 
(Church Hist., vol. 1, p. 271.) 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 51 

Gieseler says : ' ' The eucharist was considered 
the symbol of the intimate communion of the 
church with Christ and one another." (Ch. Hist.,, 
vol. 1, p. 104.) 

Kurtz says: "All unbaptized persons were ex- 
cluded." (Church Hist., vol. 1, p. 123.) 

A brilliant Frenchman testifies. 

Pressense says: "While the Lord's Supper- 
was thus celebrated with all simplicity and lib- 
erty, it was, nevertheless, with much solemnity 
in the eyes of the church. It summed up in one^ 
symbol, chosen by the Lord himself, the whole 
Christian religion. To partake of it was to make 
the most solemn profession of faith in Christ. 
To receive it unworthily was not only to despise 
the Lord's body in the symbol which spiritually 
set it forth, but also to make the church partaker 
in the sin. Thus serious and severe discipline 
was appointed not merely to prevent the prof- 
anation of the Lord's Supper, but also to repress 
all kinds of irregularities." (Early Years of 
Christianity, p. 379.) 

Here is a voice from Switzerland. 

Frederick Spanheim says: "The oblation of 
the eucharistical bread and wine by the people 
followed; the consecration of it by prayer, and 
the distribution to the faithful and baptized in 
remembrance of the death of Christ." (EccL~ 
Annals, p. 177.) 

I put an infidel on the stand. 



52 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Gibbon says : ' ' One circumstance may be ob- 
served, in which the modern churches have ma- 
terially departed from the ancient custom. The 
sacrament of baptism (even when it is adminis- 
tered to infants) was immediately followed by 
confirmation and the holy communion. " (Decline 
and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 2, p. 271.) 

Old England testifies. 

Milman says : ' ' Baptism, or the initiation into 
the Christian community, was a solemn ceremo- 
nial, requiring previous examination and proba- 
tion. The governing power would possess and 
exercise the authority to admit into the com- 
munity. They would perform, or, at all events, 
superintend the initiatory rite of baptism. The 
other distinctive rite of Christianity, the cele- 
bration of the Lord's Supper, would require a 
more active interference and co-operation on the 
part of those who presided over the community." 
(History Christ., p. 198.) 

J. G. Robertson says: "None were admitted 
but such as were baptized and in full communion 
with the church." (Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 1, 
p. 168.) 

Waddington says: "The sacraments of the 
primitive church were two — baptism and the 
Lord's Supper." (Hist. Ch., p. 46.) 

Homersham Cox says: "From a subsequent 
passage it appears that immediately after bap- 
tism, the convert was brought into the congre- 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 53 

gation, and partook of the eucharist." (First 
Cent Christ., p. 278.) 

The scholarship of America joins all the rest. 

Professor Fisher, Congregationalist, says: 
"Toward the close of the second century we 
find it to be the custom to exclude non-communi- 
cants from bemg present at the Lord's Supper. 
After the preliminary services, at the close of 
the addresses of the bishop and presbyters, the 
unbaptized were dismissed. From the Latin 
word signifying dismissal (missa) the word mass 
is derived." (Hist. Christ. Ch,, p. 66.) 

Gregory and Ruter, Methodists, say: "With 
respect to the few and simple rites instituted by 
Christ, it appears, that the sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper was administered, by the first 
Christians, whenever they assembled for the pur- 
poses of social worship; and so far from being 
confined to those who had made the greatest 
progress in religious attainments, it was equally 
participated in by the apostle of Christ and the 
meanest member of the church. The initiatory 
rite of baptism was usually performed, by im- 
mersing the whole body in the baptismal font, 
and in the earlier periods of Christianity was 
permitted to all who acknowledged the truths of 
the Gospel, and promised conformity to its laws. 
The introduction of unworthy and disorderly 
persons into the church, from easiness of admis- 
sion, naturally narrowed the terms of commun- 



^4 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

ion, and baptism was afterwards confined to 
iihose who had been previously instructed in 
religious knowledge, and proved the sincerity of 
their professions by the regularity of their lives. 
The probationers for admission into the society 
of Christians took the humble name of Catechu^ 
mens, while those who were already consecrated 
iDy ba^Dtism were distinguished by the superior 
title of Believers." (Church Hist., pp. 33, 34.) 

Dr. Schaff, Presbyterian, says: "The two sac- 
raments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, the 
antetypes of circumcision and the passover under 
the Old Testament, were instituted by Christ as 
efficatious signs, pledges, and means of the grace 
of the new covenant. They are related to each 
other as regeneration and sanctification, or as 
the beginning and growth of the Christian life." 
(Hist. Christ. Ch., vol. 1, p. 465.) 

Surely the Baptists must be right when all his- 
tory gives such a willing voice to their position. 

2. Writers upon the church. These writers 
have studied the church and her ordinances from 
every conceivable standpoint, and yet, wonder- 
ful to say, on this point they are unanimous. 

Litton, Episcopalian, says : ' ' To his church, 
represented in the apostles, he delivered the sac- 
raments. Believers are to be baptized in the 
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; bap-, 
tized Christians are to eat the bread and drink 
the cup, and thus to feed spiritually upon his 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 55 

body and blood. These simple directions com- 
prise all of the particulars of the original insti- 
tution." (The Church of Christ, p. 156.) 

Jacob, Episcopalian, says: The baptized per- 
son ' ' was at once admitted to the Lord's Supper, 
which was commonly administered to newly bap- 
tized infants, as well as to those of riper years." 
(Eccl. Pol. of New Test., p. 279.) 

Bishop Kaye, Episcopalian, says: "Christ him- 
self instituted two rites — the one to be the out- 
ward mode of initiation — the other the outward 
mark of communion with it." (Exter. Govern, 
and Discipline of the Church, p. 30.) 

Dr. Killen, Presbyterian, says: "As baptism 
was designed to supercede the Jewish circum- 
cision, the Lord's Supper was intended to occupy 
the place of the Jewish Passover. The Paschal 
lamb could be sacrificed nowhere except in the 
Temple of Jerusalem, and the passover was kept 
only once a year; but the eucharist could be dis- 
pensed wherever a Christian congregation was 
collected." (The Ancient Ch., p. 218.) 

Bannerman, Presbyterian, says : ' ' Baptism, as 
commonly administered, to entrants into the 
church, takes infeftment, so to speak, of our 
flesh when we enter into covenant with Christ, 
that not even the lower part of our being may be 
left without the attestation that he has redeemed 
it. The Lord's Supper, as administered from time 
to time to those who have been admitted into the 



56 CLOSE COMMUNION 

church before, renews this infeftment at inter- 
vals, and attests that the covenant by which we 
are Christ's still holds good both for the body 
and the spirit which He has ransomed in Him- 
self." (The Church of Christ, vol. 2, p. 129.) 

3. Writers on Systematic Theology and Dog- 
matics. These men have given their lives to the 
direct study of the Scriptures, and their testi- 
mony is important. 

Turretin, Presbyterian, says: "It is one thing 
to have a right to these external ordinances of 
the church, which belong to a profession; it is 
another thing to be interested in the internal 
blessings of faith. Unbaptized believers have 
actually a right to these, because they are al- 
ready partakers of Christ and his benefits; though 
they have not yet a right to those, except in ob- 
serving the appointed order of baptism." (Insti- 
tut. Theol., Tom iii, Loc. xviii. Quaes, iv, § 10, 
p. 22.) 

Mastricht says: "As no uncircumcised male 
was admitted to the typical supper, that is the 
passover; so, under the New Testament, no un- 
baptized person is admitted to the Lord's table.'* 
(Theol., lib. vii, cap. v, § 29.) 

Pictetus, Presbyterian, says: "The Supper of 
our Lord ought not to be administered to persons 
that are unbaptized: for before baptism, men are 
not considered as members of the visible church. '* 
(Theolog. Christiana, pp. 959, 960.) 



THE TESTIMONY OP SCHOLARS. 57 

Marckius says: "The dying and the nnbap- 
tized, are not to be admitted to communion." 
(Compend. Theolog. Christ., p. 604.) 

Witsius says: "For as two things are required 
to complete our happiness: first, our being ab- 
solved from our sins, and washed from our pol- 
lution; that we may be regenerated by the com- 
munication of the Spirit of Christ to a new life 
of grace, that is sustained, strengthened and in- 
creased therein, until we be promoted to the life 
of glory both these are sufficiently confirmed to 
us by these two sacraments. Our first engraft- 
ing into Christ, and our regeneration by the 
Spirit, are set forth by baptism; and the nourish- 
ment of our spiritual life by the holy supper." 
(Econ. Cov., vol. 2, p. 421.) 

Dr. Dabney, Southern Presbyterian, says: 
* ' That the sacrament is to be given only to cred- 
ible professors, does not indeed follow necessa- 
rily from the fact that it symbolizes saving grace; 
for baptism does this; but from the express limi- 
tation of Paul, and from the different graces 
symbolized. Baptism symbolizes those graces^ 
which initiate the Christian life: the Supper, 
those also which continue it." (Sys. Polem. 
TheoL, pp. 803, 804.) 

Dr. McDowell, Presbyterian, says : ' ' The quali- 
fications to come to the Lord's Supper, in sight 
of the church ought to be visible piety. For the 
officers in the church, cannot search the heart;. 



58 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

but they ought to look for evidence of that which 
God requires, which has been shown to be real 
piety. And since they have had committed to 
them by Christ, the keys of the visible kingdom, 
with power to open and shut it, it becomes them 
to examine persons applying to be received to 
the Lord's Supper, to enable them to form a 
judgment whether they possess or not the requi- 
site qualifications." (TheoL, vol. 2, pp. 511, 512.) 

Dr. Martensen, bishop in Denmark, says: "Bap- 
tism is the setting up of the new covenant; the 
Lord's Supper is its renewal. By baptism a man 
is incorporated into the new kingdom, and the 
possibility of, the necessary requirements for, the 
new personality are given therein; by means of 
the Lord's Supper this new personality is brought 
to perfection. * * * The Lord's Supper as a 
church ordinance, must be looked upon as an act 
of confession, appointed by the Lord to refresh 
our remembrance of him." (Christ. Dogmat., 
p. 432.) 

4. "Writers on Christian Antiquities. Writers 
on this subject are supposed- to weigh all kinds 
of testimony, and had there been any deviation 
on this subject they would undoubtedly have 
mentioned it. 

Riddle, Episcopalian, says : "In the primitive 
church, the eucharist was administered immedi- 
ately after baptism to persons newly admitted 
into the church by that rite; who, it is to be re- 



THE TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS. 59 

Tuembered, were adults, and had gone through a 
preparatory course of instruction." ''According 
to the original laws and customs of the church, 
the communicants consisted of all persons who 
had been admitted as members of the church by 
baptism." (Christ. Antiq., p. 572.) 

Coleman, Presbyterian, says : ' 'Agreeably to all 
the laws and customs of the church, baptism con- 
stituted membership with the church. All bap- 
tized persons were legitimately numbered among 
the communicants, as members of the church. 
Accordingly the sacrament immediately followed 
the ordinance of baptism, that the members thus 
received might come at once into the enjoyment 
of all the rights and privileges of Christian fel- 
lowship." (Antiq. Christ. Ch., pp. 309, 310.) 

Guericke says: "At a very early date it was 
the custom, immediately after the act of bap- 
tism," to admit the candidate "with the rest of 
the church to the Holy Communion." (Manual 
Antiq. Ch., pp. 233, 236.) 

5. Miscellaneous writers. 

Ravenellius says: "Baptism ought to precede; 
nor is the holy Supper to be administered to any, 
except they be baptized." (Bibliotheca Sacra, 
tom. i, p. 301.) 

Zanchius says: "We believe that baptism, as 
a sacrament appointed by Christ, is absolutely 
necessary to the church." (Opera, tom. viii, 
p. 416.) 



60 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Hornbekius says : ' ' No one is admitted to the 
sacred supper unless he is baptized." (Socin. 
Confut., torn, ii, p. 416.) 

Dr. Manton says: "Before tlie church, none 
but baptized persons have a right to the Lord's 
table." (Supplem. Morn. Exercis., p. 199.) 

Dr. Green, Presbyterian, says: "It appears 
from several passages of the New Testament, 
that baptism and the Lord's Supper in the Chris- 
tian church, have succeeded to circumcision and 
the passover in the Jewish. " (Lect. Shorter Cat. , 
vol. 2, p. 358.) 

Dr. Stier says: "Yet it must be maintained, 
with Luther, that the forgiveness of sins is also 
imparted in the Gospel, as here, through the 
word; we may say, further, that the first sacra- 
ment, baptism, had already communicated for- 
giveness to the participants of the Supper." 
(Words of Lord Jesus, vol. 7, p. 135.) 

Surely the Baptists must be right on the Lord's 
Supper when their position is thus heartily en- 
dorsed by the scholarship of the world. Prom 
whatever standpoint we view the subject the 
conclusion is the same. All scholars concede 
that baptism must precede the Lord's Supper. 
The man, therefore, who rants about Baptist 
"close communion" must be ignorant of the 
scholarship of the world, or hopelessly blinded 
by prejudice. 



THE TESTIMONY OF CREEDS, ETC. 61 



CHAPTER V. 

THE TESTIMONY OF CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, ETC. 

I HAVE put myself to much trouble to look 
through the creeds of various sects, Roman 
Catholic and Protestant, and they all lay down 
the order claimed by the Baptists. This is im- 
portant testimony. It shows that the whole 
Christian world is a unit on this important point. 
The order we claim, and the creeds admit, is that 
baptism precedes the Lord's Supper. 

The Roman Catholics are very clear on this 
point. The Council of Trent, 1547, has: '"Bap- 
tism, Confirmation, the Eucharist." (De Sacra- 
mentis in Genere., can. 1.) The Profession of 
the Tridentine Faith, 1564, has the same. (See 
Bulls of Pope Pius IV., Injunctum Nobis, No- 
vember 13th, 1564.) 

The Orthodox Eastern, or Greek Church, has: 
''Baptism, Unction with Chrism, Communion." 
(Queas. xcviii. Longer Cat. Eastern Church.) 

The Old Catholic Church has: "Baptism and 
the eucharist." (Fourteen Theses Old Catholic 
Union, Bonn, Art. IX.) 

The First Helvetic Confession, A. D. 1536, 
Swiss Divines, Bullinger and others, Art. XXI: 
''Baptism and the eucharist." 



62 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

The Second Helvetic Confession, 1566: "Bap- 
tism and the Supper of the Lord." (Art. XIX.) 

The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563, question 68: 
' ' How many sacraments has Christ appointed in 
the New Testament? Answer. Two: holy bap- 
tism and the holy supper." 

The Belgic Confession, 1561: "Moreover, we 
are satisfied with the number of sacraments 
which Christ our Lord hath instituted, which are 
two only, namely, the Sacrament of Baptism, 
and the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
(Art. XXIII.) 

The Scotch Confession of Faith, 1560: "As the 
Father is under the law, besides the veritie of 
the Sacrifices, had twa chiefe Sacraments, to wit, 
Circumcision and the Passover, the despisers 
and contemners whereof were not reputed for 
God's people: sa do we acknowledge and con- 
fesse that we now in the time of the Evangell 
have twa chiefe Sacraments, onelie instituted be 
the Lord Jesus, and commanded to be used of all 
they that will be reputed members of this body, 
to wit, Baptisme and the Supper or Table of the 
Lord Jesus, called the Communion of his body 
and his blude." (Art. XXI.) 

The Thirty- nine Articles of the Church of 
England, 1563, 1571, 1801: "There are two sac- 
raments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gos- 
pel, that is to say, Baptism and the SujDper of 
the Lord. (Art. XXV.) 



THE TESTIMONY OF CREEDS, ETC. 63 

The Irish articles of religion, 1615: "There be 
two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in 
the Gospel; that is to say: Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper." (Sect. 85.) 

The Westminster Confession, 1647: "There be 
only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord 
in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the 
Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be 
dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word 
lawfully ordained." (Art. XXVII.) 

The Methodist, 1784: "There are two sacra- 
ments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; 
that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the 
Lord." (Art. XVI.) 

Our position must be a very strong one when 
all of the Creeds of Christendom endorse it. We 
hold in common with all others that baptism, 
precedes the Lord's Supper. 



64 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE TERMS OF COMMUNION IN THE EPISCOPAL. 

CHURCH. ARE THE EPISCOPALIANS CLOSE 

COMMUNIONISTS ? 

WE can undoubtedly answer this question in 
the affirmative. The Episcopalians are 
quite strict in their requirements. We notice: 

1. The Episcopalians declare that baptism and 
church membership precede communion. 

Prof. Cheetham, Professor of Pastoral Theol- 
ogy in King's College, London, says: "None 
could be admitted to holy communion but bap- 
tized persons lying under no censure." (Diet. 
Antiq., vol. 1, p. 417.) 

The Episcopal Recorder says : ' ' The close com- 
munion of the Baptist churches is but the neces- 
sary sequence of the fundamental idea out of 
which their existence has grown. No Christian 
church would willingly receive to its commun- 
ion even the humblest and truest believer in 
Christ who had not been baptized. With Bap- 
tists, immersion only is baptism, and they there- 
fore of necessity exclude from the Lord's table 
all who have not been immersed. It is an essen- 
tial part of the system — the legitimate carrying 
out of the creed." 



THE EPISCOPALIANS. 65 

Dr. Wall says: "For no church ever gave the 
comraunion to any persons before they were bap- 
tized. * * * Since among all of the absurdities 
that ever were held, none ever maintained that, 
any person should partake of the communion 
before he was baptized." (Wall's Hist. Infant 
Bapt.,'Vol. 1, pp. 632, 638.) 

Lord Chancellor King says: "As for the per- 
sons communicating, they were not indifferently 
all that professed the Christian faith, as Origin 
writes : ' It doth not belong to every one to eat of 
the bread, and to drink of this cup. ' But they 
were only such as were in the number of the 
faithful, ' such as were baptized, and received 
both the credentials and practices of Christian- 
ity.' That is, who believe the articles of the 
Christian faith, and led a holy and pious life. 
Such as these, and none else, were permitted to 
communicate. Now since none but the faithful 
were admitted, it follows that the catechumens 
and the penitents were excluded; the catechu- 
mens, because they were not yet baptized, for 
baptism always preceded the Lord's Supper." 
(Prim. Ch., pp. 242, 243.) 

Bingham says: "Now the obligation which 
every man laid upon himself in baptism, as we 
have shown in a former book, was the profession 
and actual performance of three things: 1. Re- 
pentance, or a renunciation of all former sin, to- 
gether with the author of it, the devil. 2. Faith, 



66 CLOSE co^nrcyioy. 

or belief of the several articles of the Christian 
institation or rnvsterv of ofodliness. 3. A holv 
and constant obedience paid to the laws of this 
holy rehgion. In the performance of which 
sincerely and without dissimulation, every man 
was supposed to be truly qualified for baptism; 
and what qualified him for baptism, also qualified 
him for the communion : of which there is this 
certam evidence, that as soon as any man was 
baptized, he was immediately communicated; 
which could not regularly have been done, but 
upon presumption, that he that was duly quali- 
fied for baptism was qualified for communion. "' 
(Origines Eccl. , vol. 2, p. 535.; 

Dr. Cave says: "The communicants in the 
primitive church were those that embra<!ed the 
doctrine oi the gospel, and had been baptized 
into the faith of Christ. For looking upon the 
Lord's Supper as the highest and most solemn 
act 01 religion, they thought they could never 
take care enough in the dispensing of it. '' (Prim. 
Christ.. P. 1. c. xi. p. 333.) 

That the Baptists are consistent in then* terms 
of communion these authors frankly admit. 

2. The Episcopalians have put arorjid the 
Lord's Table the most stringent rules. 

(1;. It is required by Episcopalians that the 
minister who administers the commim.ion must 
be Episcopally ordained. The XXXIH Ai'ticle 
reads: "It is not lawful for anv man to take 



THE EPISCOPALIANS. 67 

upon him the office of public preaching, or min- 
istering the sacraments in the congregation, be- 
fore he be lawfully called and sent to execute 
the same: and these we ought to judge lawfully 
called and sent, which be chosen and called ta 
this work by men who have public authority 
given unto them in the congregation to call and 
send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." 

What is meant by "lawful authority"? Rev. 
Henry Gary says : ' ' The Church of England ever 
upheld the necessity of an Apostolic succession, 
and Episcopal ordination. For, to use the ex- 
pressions introductory to ordination service, ' it 
is evident unto all men diligently reading the 
Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from 
the Apostles' time there have been these orders 
of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, 
and Deacons, which officers were evermore had 
in such reverend estimation, that no man might 
presume to execute any of them, except he were 
first called, tried, examined, and known to have 
such qualities as are requisite for the same; and 
also by public prayer with imposition of hands 
by lawful authority. And therefore, to the in- 
tent that these orders may be continued, and 
reverently used and esteemed, in the United 
Church of England and Ireland, and no man shall 
be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, 
Priest or Deacon, in the United Church of Eng- 
land and Ireland, or suffered to execute any of 



68 CLOSE COMMUXIOX. 

the said functions, except he be called, tried, ex- 
amined, and admitted thereunto, according to the 
form hereafter following, or hath had formal 
Episcopal consecration or ordination.'' (Test. 
Fathers, pp. 275, 276.) 

That is plain enough. According to the Thirty- 
nine Articles no Baptist, Methodist, Presbyte- 
rian, or other schismatic has a right to adminis- 
ter the Lord's Supper. The Episcopalian clergy- 
man who would participate in an open commun- 
ion ceremony with a Methodist or Presbyterian 
congregation would violate the fundamental law 
of the Episcopal church. 

(2.) Schismatics, that is to say Baptists, Meth- 
odists or Presbyterians, are to be excluded from 
the Episcopal table. Charles "Wheatly, and there 
is no higher authority on the Prayer Book, says : 
'•'But besides persons excommunicated, and 
those aboA'e mentioned (disorderly and unbap- 
tized), there are other persons, by the laws of 
our church, disabled from communicating: such 
are of course, all schismatics, to whom no min- 
ister, when he celebrates the communion, is wit- 
tingly to administer the same, under pain of sus- 
pension. " (Wheatly on Book of Common Prayer, 
p. 261.) 

There is no doubt about that being close com- 
munion. 

(3.) The Episcopalians demand that a man 
shall be confirmed, or desirous of being con- 



THE EPISCOPALIANS. 69 

firmed, before he can sit down to their commun- 
ion. At the close of the rubric on Confirmation 
the Prayer Book says : ' 'And there shall none be 
admitted to the Holy Communion, until such a 
time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous 
to be confirmed." 

Wake, Dean of Canterbury, says: "Is there 
anything further required of those who come to 
the Lord's Supper? A. Yes, there is; that they 
may first be confirmed by the bishop." (The 
Princ. Christ. Relig:. Explained, p. 374.) 

Bishop Williams, Connecticut, says: "No mem- 
ber of any religious society, outside of the 
church, can receive her holy communion without 
a violation of a fundamental law of the liturgy; 
and no clergyman can administer it to such a 
person without a violation of his ordination vows. 
The rubric commands that no person shall be 
admitted to the holy communion until they have 
been, or are ready to be confirmed." 

Dr. W. A. Snively says : Confirmation ' ' has 
constant reference to the baptismal vow, to the 
promises then made, and the system of instruc- 
tion then prescribed; and it looks forward to the 
admission of the candidate to his full privilege, 
as a member of Christ, in the Holy Communion." 
(Parish Lect. on Book of Prayer, p. 214.) 

Charles Wheatly says : ' ' By a rubric at the end 
of the order of Confirmation, none are to be ad- 
mitted to the Holy Communion, until such a time 



70 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

as lie be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to 
be confirmed. The like provision is made by our 
provincial Constitutions, v^hich allow none to 
communicate (unless at the point of death), but 
such as are confirmed, or at least have a reason- 
able impediment for not being confirmed; and the 
Glossary allows no impediment to be reasonable, 
but the want of a bishop near the place. " (Book 
Com. Prayer, p. 262.) 

These rules are such that no Baptist, Method- 
ist, Presbyterian, could sit down at the Episco- 
pal table, as they are not ready nor desirous of 
being confirmed. 

(4. ) Episcopalians will not even commune with 
transient Episcopalians. Wheatley says: "All 
strangers from other parishes; the minister is by 
the canons required to forbid and to remit such 
home to their own parish churches and minis- 
ters, there to receive the Communion with the 
rest of their neighbors." (Book Com. Prayer, 
p. 262.) 

(5.) The Episcopal rules require that no evil 
liver shall be permitted to commune at the Lord's 
table. The English Prayer Book reads: "If 
among those who come to be partakers of the 
Holy Communion, the minister shall know any to 
be open and notorious evil livers, or to have done 
any wrong to his neighbors by word or deed, so 
that the Congregation be thereby offended; he 
shall advertize him, that he presume not to come 



THE EPISCOPALIANS. 71 

to the Lord's table, until he have openly declared 
himself to have truly repented and amended his 
former evil life, that the Congregation may 
thereby be satisfied; and that he hath recom- 
pensed the parties to whom he hath done wrong; 
or at least declared himself to be in full purpose 
to do so, as soon as he conveniently may." 

This rubric has been omitted from the liturgy 
of the American church, but is regarded as bind- 
ing; in some of the States a canon to this effect 
is enacted and in full force. T. C. Brownwell, 
D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Connecticut, says: "This 
Rubric has been omitted by our American Re- 
visers of the Liturgy; probably from the incon- 
venience of conveying the notice in our scattered 
Congregations. But it is desirable that there 
should be a general direction, requiring all per- 
sons to advertize the minister of their wishes, be- 
fore presenting themselves to the Holy Table for 
the first time. This is probably now the general 
usage of the Church. There is also a canon to 
this effect in the Diocese of Connecticut, and 
there may perhaps be similar Canons in some of 
the other Dioceses. But the general regulations 
of the Church are paramount to any local injunc- 
tions." (Book of Com. Prayer, p. 360.) 

(6.) Episcopalians permit no person who holds 
malice to come to their table. In the Adminis- 
tration of the Lord's Supper, the Prayer Book 
says: ''The same order shall the minister use 



72 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

with, those, betwixt whom he perceiveth malice 
and hatred to reign; not suffering them to be 
partakers of the Lord's Supper, until he know 
them to be reconciled." 

(7.) Episcopalians practice close communion 
in the burial of the dead. Under that head the 
Prayer Book says : ' ' Here it is to be noted, that 
the office ensuing is not to be used for any un- 
baptized adults, any who die excommunicated, or 
who have laid violent hands upon themselves.'* 

(8.) In order to commune with the Episco- 
pahans you must endorse the whole book of Com- 
mon Prayer. The Constitutions and Canons, 
No. 4, say: "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, 
that the form of God's Worship contained in the 
Book of Common Prayer and administration of 
the Sacraments, containeth anything in it that is 
repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excom- 
municated ipso facto, and not restored but by the 
bishop of the place, or archbishop, after his re- 
pentance and public revocation of such wicked 
errors." 

In corroboration of all that I have said, I give 
the testimony of two leading bishops of the Epis- 
copal Church. I asked the following questions: 
' ' Does the Episcopal Church require a godly life 
as a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper ? Does it 
require Baptism? Does it require Confirmation? 
Does it require Church membership? Any other 
prerequisites ? " The answer was plain and clear. 



THE EPISCOPALIANS. 7B 

Bishop Hugh Miller Thompson, LL.D., of Mis- 
sissippi, says: 

Battle Hill, Jackson, Miss., May 7, 1892. 
Mr. J. T. Christian: 

Dear Sir: In reply to your enquiries of May 
4th, just come to my hands, I beg to say: To 
Question 1st: Decidedly yes — ''a sober, right- 
eous, and godly life." To Question 2nd: Yes, 
invariably. To Question 3rd : Not always. Rea- 
sons and explanations in the Confirmation ritual. 
To Question 4th: Yes. Baptism makes one a 
member of the Church. A man communicates 
because he is a member of the Household. It is 
a Family Table. 

No other requirements save. Faith and Repent- 
ance and Prayerful resolutions to live a sober, 
righteous and godly life. I answer your ques- 
tions in order, supposing you have retained a 
copy. 

The Prayer Book is our best explanation, how- 
ever. Very truly yours, 

Hugh Miller Thompson. 

The Rt. Rev. T. U. Dudley, S. T. D., Bishop 
of Kentucky, says: 

Louisville, Ky., 716 Third St., May 16, 1892. 
Mr. J. T. Christian, Jackson, Miss. 

My Dear Sir: I write hurriedly as I am obliged 
to do in reply to your letter of the 13th. 

1. The Rubric in the Communion office of the 



74 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Prayer Book says : ' ' If among those who come 
to be partakers of the communion the minister 
shall know any to be open and notorious evil 
livers, or to have done any wrong to his neigh- 
bors by word or deed, so that the congregation 
be thereby offended : he shall advertize him, that 
he presume not to come to the Lord's table, un- 
til he have openly declared himself to have truly 
repented and amended his former evil life, that 
the congregation may thereby be satisfied; and 
that he hath recompensed the parties to whom 
he hath done wrong: or at least declare himself 
to be in full purpose so to do as soon as he con- 
veniently may." 

2. We do require baptism. 

3. That a person may become a regular com- 
municant of the church confirmation is required. 

4. All baptized persons are members of the 
church, and so of course as no unbaptized per- 
son may receive the Holy Communion, only 
church members may do so. 

I am truly yours, 
T. U. Dudley, Bishop of Kentucky. 

Instead of being one of open communion, the 
history of the Episcopal Church is one of blood- 
shed and persecution. Henry VIII. was scarcely 
established as head of the Episcopal Church till 
he began to persecute the Baptists. In 1535, 
according to the old Chronicler Stow: "On the 



THE EPISCOPALIANS. 75 

25th day of May, in St. Paul's Church, London, 
nineteen men and six women, born in Holland, 
who held that the children of infidel parents 
might be saved; that the baptism of infants is of 
none effect; that the elements, the bread and the 
wine, in the Lord's Supper, remain unchanged, 
and are bread and wine still, were ordered to be 
examined and their views condemned. Fourteen 
of the twenty-five were condemned to suffer 
death, one man and one woman were condemned 
to be burned in Smithfield, and the others were 
sent to other towns to be burnt." (Stow's Chron- 
icle, p. 576.) 

Froude, the historian, says of these people: 
''The details are gone — their names are gone. 
Poor Hollanders they were, and that is all. 
Scarcely the fact seemed worthy of the mention, 
so shortly is it told in a passing paragraph. For 
them no Europe was agitated, no courts were 
ordered into mourning, no papal hearts trembled 
with indignation. At their death the world 
looked on complacent, indifferent or exulting. 
Yet here, too, out of twenty-five poor men and 
women were found fourteen who, by no terror of 
stake or torture, could be tempted to say they 
believed what they did not believe. History for 
them has no word of praise; yet they, too, were 
not giving their blood in vain. Their lives might 
have been as useless as the lives of the most of 
us. In their death they assisted to pay the pur- 
chase-money for England's freedom." 



76 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

In 1536, the King and Convocation set forth 
articles against the Baptists, of which I present 
the following: 

"1. Infants must needs be christened, because 
they be born in original sin; which sin must 
needs be remitted : which cannot be done but by 
the grace of baptism. 

' • 2. That they ought to refute and take any of 
the Anabaptists' and Pelagians' opinions con- 
trary to the premises, and every other man's 
opinion agreeable unto the said Anabaptists* and 
Pelagians' opinions in this behalf, for detestable 
heresies, and utterly to be condemned. " (Wall's 
Hist. Infant Bapt., vol. 1, p. 524.) But the Ana- 
baptists replied : ' ' That it is as lawful to christen 
a child in a tub of water at home, or in a ditch by 
the way, as in a fontstone in the church." (Ful- 
ler's Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 71.) 

In 1538, according to Bishop Burnet, "There 
was a commission sent to Cranmer, Stokesley, 
Sampson, and some others, to enquire after Ana- 
baptists, to proceed against them, to restore the 
penitent, to burn their books, to deliver the ob- 
stinate to the secular arm." 

In 1539, King Henry married Lady Anne of 
Cleves. From that time Fuller says: "Dutch- 
men flocked faster than formerly to England. 
Many of these had active souls; so that whilst 
their hands were busy about their manufactures, 
their heads were also beating about points of 



THE EPISCOPALIANS. 77 

divinity. Hereof they had many rude notions, 
too ignorant to manage them themselves, and too 
proud to crave the direction of others. Their 
minds had a by- stream of activity more than what 
sufficed to drive on their vocation; and this waste 
of their souls they employed in needless specu- 
lations, and soon after began to broach their 
strange opinions, being brandod with the general 
name of Anabaptists. These Anabaptists, for 
the main, are but 'Donatists new dipped;' and 
this year they first appeared in our English 
Chronicles; for I read that four Anabaptists, 
three men and one woman, all Dutch, bare fagots 
at Paul's cross, November 24th, and, three days 
after, a man and a woman of their sect were 
burned at Smithfield." (Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 97.) 

In 1540, Parliament decreed against some who 
held ' ' that infants ought not to be baptized, and 
if baptized, to be rebaptized when they came to 
years of discretion." (Collier's Eccl. Hist., vol. 
5, p. 69.) 

In 1542, Parliament passed the following very 
remarkable law : ' 'AH books likewise impugning 
the holy sacrament of the altar, or maintaining 
the damnable opinions of the Anabaptists, are 
prohibited under forfeiture and fines. The read- 
ing of the Bible is likewise prohibited to all un- 
der the degrees of gentlemen and gentlewomen." 
(Collier's Eccl. Hist., vol. 5, p. 95.) 

Queen Elizabeth ordered, 1560, all Anabap- 



78 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

tists, foreign and English, to leave the kingdom 
in twenty-one days, because their ' ' misbelief 
gained ground " and many "were miserably mis- 
led." (Collier's Eccl. Hist., vol. 6, p. 332.) 

From this period although the Baptists greatly 
increased yet they were bitterly persecuted. I 
give here the testimony of the celebrated Dr. 
Featley, a most violent enemy and persecutor of 
the Baptists. He says: "So we may say the 
name of the father of the Anabaptists signifyeth 
in English a senseless piece of wood or block, a 
very blockhead was he, yet out of that block 
were cut those chips that kindled such a fire in 
Germany, Halsatia, and Servia that could not be 
fully quenched, no, not with the blood of 150,000 
of those killed in war or put to death in several 
places by the magistrates. This fire in the reign 
of Queen Elizabeth and King James and our pre- 
cious sovereign till now was covered under the 
ashes, or if it broke out at any time, by the care 
of the ecclesiastical and civil magistrates it was 
soon put out. But of late since the unhappy dis- 
tractions which our sins have brought upon us, 
the temporal sword being other ways employed, 
and the spiritual locked up in the scabbard, this 
sect among others hath so far presumed upon 
the protection of the State, that it hath held 
weekly conventicals, rebaptized hundreds of men 
and women together in the twilight in the rivu- 
lets and several arms of the Thames and else- 



THE EPISCOPALIANS. 79 

where, dipping them over head and ears." (The 
Dippers Dipped, or the Anabaptists Pliinged 
over Head and Ears. London, 1647. Preface, p. 3.) 

The feeling of Bishop Latimer toward the 
Baptists was the common one. He said in a ser- 
mon before Edward VI : ' ' The Anabaptists that 
were burnt here in divers towns in England went 
to their death even intrepid, as ye will say, with- 
out any fear in the world, cheerfully. Well, let 
them go. " 

All that could be said of these people was that 
they were Baptists. Hess, in his Life of Zwingle, 
says of them: *' Their morality was rigid, their 
exterior simple; they disdained riches, or affected 
to do so; and their austere demeanor impressed 
the multitude with reverence, and at the same 
time their doctrines seduced them." 

In America when they had power the Epis- 
copalians were no better. One law passed in 
Virginia will give an idea of their intolerance. 
I quote from Henning's Statutes at Large, Laws 
of Virginia, vol. 2, p. 165, December 14th, 1662: 
*' Whereas many schismatical persons out of 
their averseness to the orthodox established 
religion, or out of the new-fangled conceits of 
their own heretical inventions, refused to have 
their children baptized. Be it therefore enacted, 
by the authority aforesaid, that all persons that, 
in contempt of the divine sacrament of baptism, 
shall refuse when they may carry their child to 
a lawful minister in that county to have them 



80 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

baptized shall be amersed two thousand pounds 
of tobacco; half to the informer, half to the 
publique." 

And these statutes were put into execution. 
A Baptist minister in jail in Virginia, put there 
by Episcopalians, was no uncommon thing. 

Dr. Hawks, who was himself an Episcopalian, 
says of the Baptists of Virginia: "Their first 
preachers came from the North, and some few 
arose in the South : all met with opposition from 
those in power. 'The ministers (says Leland) 
were imprisoned, and the disciples buffeted.' 
This is but too true. No dissenters in Virginia 
experienced for a time harsher treatment than 
did the Baptists. They were beaten and impris- 
oned; and cruelty taxed its ingenuity to devise 
new modes of punishment and annoyance. The 
usual consequences followed; persecution made 
friends for its victims; and the men who were 
not permitted to speak in public, found willing 
auditors in the sympathizing crowds who gath- 
ered around the prisons to hear them preach 
from grated windows." (Contrib. Eccl. Hist. 
U. S., vol. 1, p. 121.) 

With this history of persecution and bloodshed 
the Episcopal Church can lay no claim to open 
communion. We therefore justly arrive at the 
conclusion that the Episcopalians are close com- 
munionists. I know none who demand more at 
the Lord's Table. The Episcopalians do not 
ask, nor expect others to participate with them. 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 81 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE TERMS OF COMMUNION IN THE PRESBYTE- 
RIAN CHURCH. ARE THE PRESBYTERIANS 
CLOSE COMMUNIONISTS? 

ON this communioii question the declarations 
and acts of the Presbyterian Church have 
heen very explicit. They have spoken in no un- 
certain terms. I present the facts: 

1. Among Presbyterians, conversion, baptism 
and church membership are prerequisites to the 
Lord's Supper. 

The Confession of Faith says : ' ' There be only 
two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in 
the Gospel, that is to say, baptism and the Sup- 
per of the Lord." (Art. 27.) 

This is the exact order we claim- 
Calvin says in the Catechism of the Church at 
Geneva: "Is it enough to receive both of the 
sacraments once in a lifetime? It is enough so to 
receive baptism, which may not be repeated. It 
is different with the Supper. What is the differ- 
ence? By baptism the Lord adopts us and brings 
us into his church, so as thereafter to regard us 
as a part of his household. After he has admit- 
ted us among the number of his people he testi- 



82 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

lies by the Supper that he takes a continual in- 
terest in nourishing us." 

Henry Bullinger says: "Unto the baptism of 
our Lord Christ, is coupled the sacrament of the 
body and blood of our Lord which we call the 
Lord's Supper. For, those whom the Lord hath 
regenerated with the laver of regeneration, those 
doth he also feed with his spiritual food; and 
nourish them unto eternal life: wherefore it fol- 
loweth necessarily, that we entreat next of the 
holy Supper of the Lord." (Sermons on the 
Sacraments, p. 197.) 

Rev. Wm. C. Roberts, D.D., Moderator of the 
Presbyterian General Assembly, and Secretary 
of the Board of Home Missions of the Presbyte- 
rian Church of the United States, says: 

New York, May 10, 1892. 
Rev. J. T. Christian, Jackson, Miss. 

Dear Bro.: Yours of the 4th inst. has just come 
to hand. The terms of admission to the Lord's 
Supper in the Presbyterian Church are credible 
evidence of conversion. We require that at the 
beginning of a holy life. We require baptism 
before one is to be publicly recognized as a. 
church member. We do not deem church mem- 
bership essential to salvation, but we hold that 
every converted person will necessarily desire to 
be identified with God's people. There are no 
other prerequisites to membership in the Pres- 
byterian Church. 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 83 

Hoping that the above will be satisfactory, I 
remain, Yours fraternally, 

Wm. C. Roberts. 

I have at hand a remarkably fine letter from 
Dr. Theodore Guyler, for thirty years pastor of 
Lafayette Square Presbyterian Church, Brook- 
lyn, N. Y. He says: 

Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church, f 
Brooklyn, April 3, 1890. ) 

Dear Brother : In reply to your questions I 
would say: 

1. The terms of communion in the Presbyte- 
rian Church require a previous open confession 
of the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. 
That presupposes a membership in some evan- 
gelical church. 

2. Baptism is an essential part of an open pro- 
fession of Jesus Christ, and of reception into the 
visible church. 

3. I do not suppose there is any difference be- 
tween the Presbyterians and the Baptists in the 
terms of communion. 

I write in haste; but allow me to express my 
devout gratitude for all that the great Baptist 
church is doing for the maintenance of sound 
evangelical doctrine and for the spread of the. 
kingdom of Christ. 

Yours fraternally, 

Theodore L. Cuyler.. 



84 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

The American Presbyterian says : ' ' Open com- 
munion is an absurdity, when it means commun- 
ion with the unbaptized. " 

Dr. Philip Schaff says: "The communion is 
for baptized believers, and for them only. Bap- 
tism is the sacramental sign and seal of regener- 
ation and conversion; the Lord's Supper is the 
sacrament of sanctification and growth in spirit- 
ual life." (Teaching, p. 193.) 

The eminent Presbyterian preacher of New 
Orleans, Dr. B. M. Palmer, says: "The terms of 
communion with us are the profession of saving 
faith in Christ and the public acknowledgment 
of this in baptism." 

Dr. John Dick says : • • Every person who has 
been baptized does not possess the moral quali- 
fications which would entitle him to be accounted 
a disciple of Christ. He may be an open apostate 
from the faith; or he may be so ignorant of 
religion, and so irregular in his conduct, that it 
would be an abuse of charity to consider him as 
a Christian. Hence we demand, in candidates 
for the Lord's table, a competent measure of 
knowledge, a profession of faith in Christ, and a 
behaviour that will justify us in believing them 
to be sincere. 'All ignorant and ungodly per- 
sons, ' says our church, ' as they are unfit to enjoy 
communion with him, so they are unworthy of 
the Lord's table, and cannot without great sin 
against Christ, while they remain such, partake 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 85 

of these holy mysteries, or be admitted there- 
unto.'" (Lect. TheoL, p. 421.) 

It has already been intimated, in the above, 
that the participant in the Lord's Supper must 
be a member of the church. The Confession 
emphasizes that the administration of the Lord's 
Supper is the distinctive act of a "particular 
church." I read: "The ordinances established 
by Christ, the head, in a particular church, which 
is regularly constituted with its proper officers, 
are prayer, singing praises, reading, expounding 
and preaching the Word of God; administering 
baptism and the Lord's Supper; public solemn 
fasting and thanksgiving, catechising, making 
collections for the poor, and other pious pur- 
poses; exercising discipline; and blessing the 
people." (Form of Govern. , chap, vii.) 

Nothing can be more evident from these state- 
ments than that the Presbjfterians demand con- 
version, baptism and church membership before 
the Lord's Supper. 

2. Presbyterians demand that the Supper shall 
be administered by a duly ordained minister. 
Of Baptism it is declared: "Baptism is not to be 
unnecessarily delayed; nor to be administered, in 
any case, by any private x^erson; but by a min- 
ister of Christ, called to be steward of the mys- 
teries of God. " (Directory f orWorship, chap. vii. ) 
Of the Lord's Supper it is said: ' ' The Lord Jesus 
hath in this ordinance, appointed his ministers 



86 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

to declare his word of institution to the people, 
to pray, and bless the elements of bread and 
wine, and thereby to set them apart from a com- 
mon to a holy use; and to take and break the 
bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating 
also themselves) to give both to the communi- 
cants; but to none who are not then present in 
the congregation. ' ' (Con. Faith, Art. xxix, sec. iii. ) 
And the same thing is taught in the Larger Cate- 
chism, question 169. 

Dr. A. Green, in his Lectures on the Shorter 
Catechism, vol. 2, p. 358, says: "It is held by us 
essential, that a regularly ordained minister of 
the gospel should administer this ordinance." 

3. Presbyterians declare that the Baptists are 
no closer than others. This can be proved from 
many sources. 

The New York Observer, the oldest Presbyte- 
rian paper in this country, says: "It is not a 
want of Charity which compels the Baptist to 
restrict his invitation. He has no hesitation in 
admitting the personal piety of his unimmersed 
brethren. Presbyterians do not invite the un- 
baptized, however pious they may be. It is not 
uncharitable. It is not bigotry on the part of the 
Baptists to confine their communion to those 
whom they consider the baptized." 

The Interior, Chicago, the organ of the Western 
Presbyterians, says: "We agree Avith the Bap- 
tists in saying that unbaptized persons should 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 87 

not partake of the Lord's Supper. Their view 
compels them to think that we are not baptized, 
and shuts them up to close communion. Close 
communion is, in our judgment, a more defensi- 
hle position than open communion, which is 
justified on the ground that baptism is not a pre- 
requisite to the Lord's Supper. To charge Bap- 
tists with bigotry because they abide by the 
logical consequences of their system is absurd." 

Dr. John Hunter, for thirty years pastor at 
Jackson, Miss. , says : " I do not know that there 
is any special difference in the terms of admis- 
sion to the communion table between Baptists 
and Presbyterians; that is to say that both re- 
quire personal faith in an atoning Saviour, and 
both require communicants to be baptized." 

Dr. Griffin says : "I agree with the advocates 
of close communion in two points: (1) that bap- 
tism is the initiating ordinance which introduces 
lis into the visible church; of course, where there 
is no baptism there are no visible churches; 
(2) that we ought not to commune with those 
who are not baptized, and, of course, are not 
church members, even if we regard them as 
Christians. Should a pious Quaker so far depart 
from his principles as to wish to commune with 
me at the Lord's table, while yet he refused to 
be baptized, I could not receive him; because 
there is such a relationship established between 
the two ordinances that I have no right to sepa- 



88 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

rate them; in other words, I have no right to 
send the sacred elements out of the church." 

Dr. John Hall, one of the greatest preachers 
in this country, says: "I think that all evangel- 
ical churches look for baptized persons as com- 
municants. The Baptists differ from their breth- 
ren as to the time and mode of baptism. I do 
not think the Baptists and Presbyterians differ 
in any other respect as to the terms of commun- 
ion at the Lord's table." 

The Baptists are not, therefore, illiberal on 
account of this practice. It is conceded that we 
have a right to have principles, and to stand by 
them. This is all we have ever asked. 

4. Presbyterians claim that they have a right 
to make such laws as they may choose to govern 
the approach of communicants to their table. 
In doing this they contend that they have not 
gone beyond their rights, although they should 
make stringent laws governing their own mem- 
bers. Hence I read in the Confession of Faith: 
''That in perfect consistency with the above 
principle of common right, every Christian 
church, or union or association of particular 
churches, is entitled to declare the terms of ad- 
mission into its communion, and the qualifica- 
tions of its ministers and members, as well as 
the whole system of its internal government 
which Christ has appointed : that in the exercise 
of this right, they may, notwithstanding, err, in 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 89 

making the terms of communion either too lax or 
too narrow: yet, even in this case, they do not 
infringe upon the liberty, or the rights of others, 
but only make an improper use of their own.'^ 
(Con. Faith, Form Govern., B. I, sec. 2.) 

These Church Rights were fully endorsed by 
the General Assembly in 1839. That body said: 
''Every Christian church, or association of 
churches, is entitled to declare the terms of ad- 
mission into its communion." 

The Presbyterians not only assumed that they 
had a right to make such laws, but they made 
them and carried them into execution. On 
October the 20th, 1645, the Presbyterians in the 
English Parliament passed a very full and ex- 
clusive law on this subject. It was known as: 
''An ordinance of the Lords and Commons as- 
sembled in Parliament about Suspension from 
the Lord's Supper." (Rushwood, vol. 6, pp. 210- 
212.) That law resulted in the XXXth Article 
of the Confession of Faith, which is the law of 
the Presbyterian Church to-day. That Article 
reads in sections iii and iv: "Church censures 
are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of 
offending brethren; for deterring of others from 
like offenses; for purging out of that leaven 
which might infect the whole lump; for vindi- 
cating the honour of Christ, and the holy pro- 
fession of the Gospel; and for preventing the 
wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the 



90 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

cliurch, if they should suffer this covenant, and 
the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious 
and obstinate offenders. 

"For the better attaining of these ends, the 
officers of the church are to proceed by admoni- 
tion, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper for a season, and by excommunication 
from the church, according to the nature of the 
crime, and demerit of the person.'' 

The Larger Catechism, Q. 173, is in full accord 
with the above article. It reads : ' ' May any who 
profess the faith, and desire to come to the 
Lord's Supper, be kept from it? Such as are 
found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwith- 
standing their profession of the faith and desire 
to come to the Lord's Supper, may and ought to 
be kept from that sacrament by the power which 
Christ has left in his church, until they receive 
instruction and manifest their reformation." 

And for fear that somebody might not consider 
the Confession of Faith a close communion docu- 
ment it is put down under the Directory of Wor- 
ship, chapter VIII: 

"I. The communion, or supper of the Lord, is 
to be celebrated frequently; but how often, may 
be determined by the minister and eldership of 
each congregation, as they may judge most for 
edification. 

"II. The ignorant and scandalous are not to 
be admitted to the Lord's Supper. 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 91 

' ' III. It is proper that public notice should be 
given to the congregation, at least, the Sabbath 
before the administration of this ordinance, and 
that, either then, or on some day of the week, the 
people be instructed in its nature, and due prep- 
aration for it; that all may come in a suitable 
manner to this holy feast." 

Dr. A. A. Hodge sums up the entire matter in 
these words: "All church power must be exer- 
cised in an orderly manner through the officers 
spoken of above, freely chosen for this purpose 
by the brethren; and it relates: 1. To matters of 
doctrine. She has a right to set forth a public 
declaration of the truths which she believes, and 
which are to be acknowledged by all who enter 
her communion. That is, she has a right to 
frame creeds or confessions of faith, as her tes- 
timony for the truth and her protest against 
error. And as she has been commissioned to 
teach all nations, she has the right of selecting 
teachers, of judging of their fitness, of ordaining 
and sending them forth in the field, and of re- 
calling and deposing them when unfaithful. 
2. The Church has power to set down rules for 
the ordering of public worship. 3. She has 
power to make rules for her own government; 
such as every church has in its book of disci- 
pline, etc. 4. She has power to receive into fel- 
lowship, and to exclude the unworthy from her 
own communion." (Com. on Con. Faith, pp. 501, 
502.) 



92 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

The conclusion is inevitable, that if Presby- 
terians have laid down such stringent rules in 
the observance of the Supper, and claim that 
they have a full right so to do, they cannot con- 
sistently object to any practice that may exist 
among the Baptists. 

5. The history of the Presbyterian Church has 
been one of strict communion. A study of their 
history developed the fact that they have not 
sought communion with other denominations; 
nor has there been inter- communion among the 
various Presbyterian bodies. I invite your atten- 
tion to the practice of the Presbyterians in a. 
number of countries. 

The Presbyterians originated in Switzerland 
with John Calvin. He was by no means an open 
communionist. So far from this being the case 
he mstituted the most rigid laws against others; 
and even put Servetus to death because he was 
not in sympathy with his views. The celebrated 
Francis Turretin, Professor of Theology in Ge- 
neva, shows the spirit of that country toward 
others. He says: "Since magistrates are keep- 
ers of both tables, and the care of religion per- 
tains to them, they ought to provide that it 
should suffer no injury, and should in wisdom 
oppose those who assert it, lest the poison insin- 
uate itself more widely, and be diffused through 
the whole body. But magistrates cannot protect 
religion, unless they restrain the obstinate and 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 93 

factious contemners thereof. Such interference, 
both the glory of God, of which they are the 
defenders, and the safety of the commonwealth, 
of which they are the guardians, demand. If 
less evils are restrained by heavy penalties, this, 
which is the greatest, which injures the trust of 
God, which blasphemes his name, which rends 
the Church, which corrupts the faith, and brings 
into danger the safety of the faithful, should not 
be permitted to go unpunished. Rather is there 
frequently required, that a speedy and powerful 
remedy be applied; inasmuch, as from this quar- 
ter, the destruction of the whole body is threat- 
ened, unless the application be quickly made." 
(De Polit. Ecc. gubern., Tim. iii, Loc. xviii, 
quaesti xxxiv, p. 278. ) 

In Scotland it was required: "That all kings 
and princes, at their coronation, and reception 
of their princely authority, shall make their 
faithful promise, by their solejnn oath, in the 
presence of their eternal God, that during the 
whole of their lives, they shall serve the same 
eternal God, to the utmost of their power, ac- 
cording as he hath required in his most holy 
word, contained in the Old and New Testament; 
and, according to the same word, shall maintain 
the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching 
of his holy word, the due and rightful adminis- 
tration of the sacraments now received and 
preached within this realm, (according to the 



94 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Confession of Faith immediately preceding) and 
shall abolish and gainstand all false religion con- 
trary to the same ; and shall rule the people com- 
mitted to their charge, according to the will and 
command of God, revealed in his foresaid Trord, 
and according to the laudable laws and constitu- 
tions received in this realm, no wise repugnant 
to the said will of the eternal God; and shall 
procure to the utmost of their power, to the Mrk 
of God, and the whole Christian people, true and 
perfect peace in all time coming; and that they 
shall be careful to root out of their empu^e all 
heretics and enemies to the true worship of God, 
who shall be conAi.cted by the true Mrk of God 
of the aforesaid crimes." (Coronation Oath in 
the National Covenant.) 

In Scotland there was a general form of ex- 
pulsion of unworthy persons from the Lord's 
table, in connection with the ministration of the 
sacrament. This was called excommunication or 
' ' fencing the tables. " (Fisher's Ch. Hist. , p. 363. ) 
It was further required that office holders should 
be communicants in the Presbyterian Church. 

The first Confession of Helvetia declares: 
"Seeing that every magistrate is of God, his 
chief duty, except it please him to exercise 
tyranny, consists in this : to defend religion from 
all blasphemy, to promote it, as the prophet 
teaches, out of the word of- Grod, to see it put in 
practice, as far as it lies in him." The latter 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 95- 

Confession, which was expressly approved by the 
Church of Scotland and other Presbyterians, 
says: "Magistracy, of whatever sort it be, is 
ordained of God himself, for the peace and tran- 
quility of mankind; so that the magistracy ought 
to have the chief place in the world. If he be 
an adversary of the Church, he may greatly hin- 
der and disturb it; but if he be a friend and 
member of the Church, he is a most profitable 
member, and may excellently aid and advance it. 
His principal duty is to procure and maintain 
peace and public tranquility; which doubtless he 
will never do more happily than when he is sea- 
soned with the fear of God, and true religion, 
particularly when we shall, after the examples 
of the most holy kings and princes of the people 
of the Lord, advance the preaching of the truth, 
and the pure unadulterated faith, shall extirpate 
falsehood, and all superstition, impiety and idol- 
atry, and shall defend the Church of God; for 
indeed we teach that the care of religion doth 
chiefly appertain to the holy magistrate." 

The Confession of Saxony says : ' ' The word of 
God doth in general, teach this, concerning the 
power of the magistrate; first, that God wills 
that the magistrates, without all doubt, should 
sound forth the voice of the moral law among 
men, according to the ten commandments, or law 
natural, by-laws forbidding idolatry and blas- 
phemies, as well as murders, theft, etc. , for well 



96 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

it has been said of old: "The magistrate is a 
keeper of the law, i. e. , of the first and second 
table, as concerning discipline and good order. 
This ought to be their special care (of kingdoms 
and of their rulers), to hear and embrace the 
true doctrine of the Son of God, and to cherish 
the churches, according to Ps. ii and xxiv, and 
Isaiah xlix, and kings and queens shall be thy 
nurses, i. e. , let commonwealths be nurses of the 
church, and to godly studies. " 

The Dutch Confession says: God "hath armed 
the magistrate with a sword, to punish the bad 
and to defend the good. Furthermore, it is their 
duty to be careful not only to preserve the civil 
polity, but also to endeavor that the ministry be 
preserved: that all idolatry and counterfeit wor- 
ship be abolished, the kmgdom of Antichrist be 
brought down, and the kingdom of Christ be en- 
larged; in fine, that it is their duty to brmg it to 
pass, that the holy word of the Gospel be 
preached everywhere, that all men may serve 
God, purely and freely, according to the pre- 
scribed will of his word. " 

The French Confession says : ' ' God hath de- 
livered the sword unto the magistrate's hand, 
that sms committed against both tables of God's 
law, not only against the second, but the first 
also, may be suppressed." 

There is nothing of open communion in these 
Presbyterian laws and Confessions of Faith. 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 97 

When we recollect that these heretics and blas- 
phemers were none other than Baptists, and that 
the magistrates were to root them out, and either 
banish them from the country or burn them at 
the stake, we shudder. These things settle be- 
yond a doubt that the Presbyterians of Europe 
were not open communionists. 

In the United States the history of Presbyte- 
rianism is against open communion. I present a 
statement from Thomas Jefferson on Presbyteri- 
anism. He says : ' ' The atmosphere of our coun- 
try is unquestionably charged with a threatening 
cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser 
in others, but too heavy in all. I had no idea, 
however, that in Pennsylvania, the cradle of tol- 
eration, and freedom of religion, it could have 
risen to the height you describe. This must be 
owing to the growth of Presbyterianism. Here 
Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and 
Baptist, join together in hymning their Maker, 
listen with attention and devotion to each others' 
preachers, and all mix in society with perfect 
harmony. It is not so in the districts where 
Presbyterianism prevails undividedly. Their 
ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival, if 
they had power. Systematical at grasping at an 
ascendency over all other sects, they aim at en- 
grossing the education of the country, they are 
hostile to every institution that they do not di- 



98 CLOSE COMMUXIOX. 

rect; are jealous of seeing others begin, to attend 
at all to that object.*' (Works, vol. 4, p. 355. ) 

On the same subject he says in his letter to 
William Short: "The Presbyterian clergy are 
the loudest, the most intolerant of all sects; the 
most tyrannical and ambitious; ready at the "w^ord 
of the lawgiver, if such a word could now be ob- 
tained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekin- 
dle in this virgin hemisphere the flames in which 
their oracle, Calvin, consumed the poor Servetus, 
because he could not subscribe to the proposition 
of Calvin, that magistrates have a right to ex- 
terminate all heretics to the Calvin is tic creed. 
They pant to re-establish, by law, that holy in- 
C[uisition, which they can now only infuse into 
public opinion." (p. 322.) 

When the great struggle came in Virginia for 
the complete disestablishment of the Episcopal 
Church the Presbyterians passed many noble 
resolutions. But when, at length, the General 
Assembly passed a law, that • • a general assess- 
ment for the support of religion ought to be ex- 
tended to those who profess the public worship 
of the Deity." and there was a chance for the 
Presbvterians to receive State aid. thev faltered. 
(Journal House of Delegates. October, 1784, 32.) 
Rives says this was ' • in a memorial presented by 
the united clergy of the Presbyterian Church." 
(Life and Times of Madison, vol. 1. p. 601.) 

Dr. Foot, a Presbyterian historian of Virginia, 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 99 

says that the Hanover Presbytery prepared for 
the Legislature, November 12th, 1784, a plan of 
assessment as follows: 

"1. Religion as a spiritual system is not to be 
considered as an object of human legislation, but 
may be in a civil view, as preserving the exist- 
ence and promoting the happiness of society. 

2. That public worship and public periodical in- 
struction to the people, be maintained in this 
view by a general assessment for this purpose. 

3. That every man, as a good citizen, be obliged 
to declare himself attached to some religious 
community, publicly known to profess the belief 
of one God, His righteous providence, our ac- 
countableness to Him, and a future state of re- 
wards and punishments. 4. That every citizen 
should have liberty annually to direct his as- 
sessed proportion to such community as he 
chooses. 5. Provides that twelve tithables shall 
exclusively direct the application of the money 
contributed for their support." (Sketches of 
Virginia, p. 338.) 

President Madison, writing of this struggle, 
under date, of April 12th, 1785, says of this pro- 
posal to continue taxation: "The Episcopal peo- 
ple are generally for it — the tax. The Presby- 
terians seem as ready to set up an establishment 
which is to take them in, as they were to pull 
down that which shut them out. I do not know 
a more shameful contrast than might be found 



100 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

between their memorials on the latter and the 
former occasions." (Rive's Life Madison, vol. 1, 
p. 630.) . 

Referring to the Presbyterians in this crisis 
Dr. Hawks says: "When that great end (the 
giving a death blow to the legalized superiority) 
was once obtained, and every religious society 
stood upon the same level, the question m dis- 
pute assumed to these allies a very different 
aspect, and they deserted the standard under 
which they had before achieved their victory. 
They had prostrated the church; they had 
proved themselves not at all reluctant to strip 
her clergy of that competent maintenance which 
was secured to them by the possession of prop- 
erty; but they now manifested an aversion, more 
rational than consistent, in being left to find a 
precarious support for themselves, in the tender 
mercies of a set of voluntary contributors." 
(Hawks' Hist. Prot. Epis. Ch., pp. 151, 152.) 

In every country where Presbyterians have 
had power they have persecuted. 

I do not regard the people who are Presbyte- 
rians as worse than others; but the trouble is in 
the organic law of Presbyterianism. Perhaps 
Dr. Guthrie has rightly put it: " So I fear that, 
on departing from the Church of Rome, we car- 
ried into our Protestantism — as was not un- 
natural — some of her ancient superstitions; just 
as our fathers carried into their practices some 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 101 

of her intolerant principles. We cannot approve 
of their intolerance, yet it admits of an apology. 
They had been suckled by the wolf, and it 
is no great wonder that, with the milk of the 

WOLF, they should HAVE IMBIBED SOME OF 

HER NATURE." (Gospel in Ezek., p. 213.) 

The Presbyterian Churches of this country do 
not commune with their European brethren. Dr. 
Breckinridge, in his debate with Archbishop 
Hughes of the Catholic Church, says: "Mr. 
Hughes says : And if they have changed, as he 
asserts, let the next General Assembly break 
communion with their sister Presbyteries in 
Europe, in whose Confessions of Faith the prin- 
ciples of intolerance are avowed as a doctrine. 
Now the truth is, Mr. Hughes, ignorantly I 
would fain hope, has entirely falsified the facts. 
We hold no such communion with any such 
churches. The Church of Scotland has an es- 
tablishment, and retains the intolerant doctrine. 
The consequence is we have no communion with 
her. The Irish Church (the Synod of Ulster) 
receives the regium donum. We have no recip- 
rocity with her." (Hughes and Breckinridge 
Debate, p. 527.) 

We have a more recent example. The Pan- 
Presbyterian Council at Philadelphia, in 1880, 
refused to observe the Lord's Supper together, 
upon the ground that the Supper is a Church 
ordinance, to be observed only by those who are 



102 • CLOSE COMMUNION. 

amenable to the discipline of the body, and there- 
fore not to be observed by separate Church or- 
ganizations acting together. Substantially upon 
this ground the Old School General Assembly 
long before, being invited to unite at the Lord's 
table with the New School body with whom they 
had dissolved ecclesiastical relations declined to 
do so. (See Strong's Systemat. TheoL, p. 549.) 
Dr. Engles, editor of the Philadelphia Presby- 
terian, September 12th, 1840, took the ground 
that the Old School Presbyterians could not 
commune with the Methodists and the New 
School Presbyterians. In reply to some resolu- 
tions of the West Hanover Presbytery, Virginia, 
formally condemning this doctrine, he observes : 
' 'As Presbyterians we profess to receive our de- 
nominational distinction from the symbols of 
faith which we adopt; and we regard other de- 
nominations as having their distinctive belief 
and character, of which we judge by their public 
symbols. The opinion that Confessions or doc- 
trinal formularies are only obligatory on the 
ministry, and not on the people of a church, is, 
in our judgment, a most dangerous one; the 
adoption of it must at once destroy the homo- 
geneity of a church, and give full license to the 
people to embrace every form of error. On the 
contrary, it is presumed that a Presbyterian be- 
lieves in Presbyterian doctrine, or why is he a 
Presbyterian? And that a Methodist believes in 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 103 

the doctrines of his own church, or why is he not 
something else? The Methodists and Presbyte- 
rians alike believe that they have very good rea- 
sons for being as they are; nay, so potent are 
those reasons regarded to be, that neither imag- 
ines he could ever be induced to change his posi- 
tion. Now all we have contended for is consist- 
ency in carrying this principle out into practice. 
' 'As our Methodist brethren * * * have taken 
umbrage at our language, let us ask them if they 
are prepared to advise their people, on all favor- 
able occasions, to go and commune with the 
Presbyterians? Do they wish them to think there 
is no difference between the denominations? Do 
they regard the difference as so trivial as to in- 
vite entire oblivion of them by their flocks, when 
they stray into Presbyterian folds? We judge 
not. Why then should they be angry with us 
for following their example? Holding the faith 
we do * * * can we, or ought we to say to the 
sheep of our fold — Yonder are pastures in which 
we believe there are poisonous weeds growing, 
but still there can be but little danger of occa- 
sionally feeding there? In this matter we have 
never found our Methodist brethren a particle 
more liberal than ourselves. We have never 
found them backward in decrying Presbyterian- 
ism; and we, on the other hand, candidly tell 
them, as we have often told them before, that we 



104 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

consider their system as very erroneous. For 
each of us thus to think is our right, in the exer- 
cise of Christian liberty, but is it quite possible 
that we should forget this, and lay aside our 
strong feelings on the subject, while we com- 
mune together? " 

Of the New School Presbyterians Dr. Engles 
says : ' ' The West Hanover resolutions express as 
much solicitude to be on as good terms with the 
New School as with the Methodists. If we un- 
derstand them, they wish the whole world to 
know that they distinctly disavow the exclusive - 
ness which would refuse to commune with the 
men whom they, as Presbyterians, helped out of 
the Church. If we mistake not they took an 
honorable part in the exclusive measures by 
which the New School lost their statutes in our 
church; we say, their statutes in our church, for 
although the exclusion in question did not affect 
their ecclesiastical organization, all the world 
knows that the excluded party are not now, and 
never have been since the passage of the acts, in 
the communion of the Presbyterian church. 
When, therefore, this Presbytery publicly says 
that they wish, with all ' liberality and Christian 
courtesy, ' to hold communion with them — what 
must they think? If such language does not 
sound like a bitter mockery in their ears, we are 
not well skilled in sounds. The measure by 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 105 

which the New School was excluded from the 
Presbyterian church was either righteous or un- 
righteous; if the former, why should we make 
any professions of attachment which our actions 
do not sustain, or if the latter, why do we not 
magnanimously avow it, and invite them back in 
a body? We believe it was righteous, and whether 
right or wrong in our belief, we contend that, 
while the causes exist which led to it, it is ut- 
terly inexpedient to hold communion with those 
churches." (Philadelphia Presbyterian, Septem- 
ber 12th, 1840.) 

From the Synodical proceedings of one of the 
Valley States we read: The Committee on Bills 
and Overtures, to whom was referred the ques- 
tion: "Is it proper that there should be inter- 
communion between Presbyterians and those de- 
nominations who hold Arminian sentiments?" 
presented the following report which was adopt- 
ed: "That after giving it all the attention which 
the importance of the subject demands, they are 
of the opinion that for Presbyterians to hold 
communion in sealing ordinances with those who 
deny the doctrines of grace, through the blood 
of Christ, etc., is highly prejudicial to the truth 
as it is in Jesus. Nor can such intercommunion 
answer any valuable purpose to those who prac- 
tice it, as two cannot walk together unless they 
be agreed. Yet, as there are persons who have 



106 CLOSE COMMUXTOX. 

received distorted ^i.ews of the doctrines of 
grace, wlio notwithstanding admit these doc- 
trines in fact, although they are prejudiced 
against the terms generally used in the discus- 
sion of these subjects, your committee are of the 
opinion that, if such manifest a desire to hold 
communion ^th us, that, after being conversed 
with, and having received satisfaction on these 
and other points on which their church and ours 
disagree, and having obtained satisfactory e^i.- 
dence of their piety, charity requires that they 
should be admitted to occasional interconunun- 
ion. *" (Union Evangelist, and Presbyterian Ad- 
vocate, 1820, vol. 2, pp. 96-99.) 

And from the ^^roceeding of one other Synod 
we read: ' ' The co mm ittee are of the opinion that 
for Presbyterians to hold communion in sealmg 
ordinances with those who belong to churches 
holding doctrines contrary to our standards, is 
incompatible with the purity and the peace of our 
church, and highly prejudicial to the truth as it 
is in Jesus. Xor can such communion answer 
any valuable purpose, etc. In accordance with 
these views, your committee are of opinion that 
the j)ractice of inviting to the communion all 
who are in good standing in their own churches, 
is calculated to do much evil, and should not be 
continued, while every church session is, how- 
ever, left at liberty to admit to occasional com- 



THE PRESBYTERIANS. 107 

nmnion members of other denominations, after 
having conversed with them, and received satis- 
faction of their soundness in the faith, and Chris- 
tian practice." (Extracts from Synodical Rec- 
ords, 1832, ut supra, vol. 3, p. 240.) 

We are certain, therefore, that open commun- 
ion among Presbyterians is of recent origin, and 
contrary to the well known history of Presbyte- 
rianism. So much so that Dr. David Montfort 
says : ' 'As to how far catholic or open communion 
has been practiced, I am not very accurately in- 
formed. The language of the divines of Westmin- 
ster afford no evidence to me that it was sustained 
by them. It is very certain that four different 
denominations subscribing this same confession 
of faith, and adhering most tenaciously to it, dis- 
countenanced the practice altogether. I am ex- 
ceeding happy to be informed that in the Synod 
of Pittsburg, where in our great struggle, Pres- 
byterianism prevailed in its greatest purity, it is 
not generally practiced. The practice is of re- 
cent date. My own recollection, and the testi- 
mony of older men, assure me that the practice 
of our forefathers was exceedingly strict. That 
it was rarely, if at all, the case with them for 
their own members to commune out of the par- 
ticular church to which they belonged. That a 
sojourner was not admitted except on a certifi- 
cate of his good standing in his own church. So 



108 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

far were our forefathers from the present prac- 
tice of laxness in this day." 

From the above history Presbyterians can 
hardly censure the Baptists for being close com- 
munionists. We have no close communion rec- 
ord like this. It cannot be denied that Presby- 
terians concede all we claim as to the terms of 
communion, and further declare that we are con- 
sistent in our practice. 



I 



THE CONGREGATIONALISTS. 109 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE TERMS OP COMMUNION IN THE CONGREGA- 
TIONAL CHURCH. ARE THE CONGREGATION- 
ALISTS CLOSE COMMUNIONISTS? 

I PRESENT the testimony that the Congrega- 
I tionalists have the same terms of approach 
to the Lord's table as have the Baptists. 

The Congregationalists require conversion, 
baptism, church membership as prerequisites to 
the Lord's Supper. This we learn from various 
sources. 

Dr. Henry M. Dexter says: " Only members in 
good standing in the visible church, have a right 
to partake of the Lord's Supper." (Congrega- 
tionalism, p. 163.) 

George P. Fisher, D. D. , Professor of Ecclesi- 
astical History in Yale University, says : ' 'After 
the rite of baptism had been administered, they 
gathered in an assembly for common prayer. 
Then they saluted one another with a kiss; and 
the service concluded with the administration of 
the communion, prayers and thanksgiving, to 
which the congregation responded ' amen, ' form- 
ing a part of the service. " (Begin. Christ. , p. 566. ) 
Dr. Dwight, President of Yale College, says: 
" It is an indispensable qualification for this or- 



110 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

dinance that the candidate for communion be 3r 
member of the visible church in full standing. 
By this I intend that he should be a man of piety; 
that he should have made a public profession of 
religion, and that he should have been baptized." 
(Syst. TheoL, Ser. 160, B. 8, ch. 4, sec. 7, vol. 4, 
pp. 365, 366.) 

The Independent, one of the most widely circu- 
lated, and perhaps the most influential Pedobap- 
tist paper in the country, in an editorial, says: 
' ' Leading writers of all denominations declare 
that converts must be baptized before they can 
be invited to the communion table. This is the 
position generally taken. But Baptists regard- 
ing sprinkling a nullity — no baptism at all — look 
upon Presbyterians, Methodists, and others, as 
unbaptized persons. " " The other churches can- 
not urge the Baptists to become open -commun- 
ionists till they themselves take the position that 
all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, the unbap- 
tized as well as the baptized, may be invited to 
the communion table." (Editorial, July, 1879.) 

These authorities prove beyond a doubt that 
Congregationalists demand of communicants the 
same qualifications as do the Baptists. 

The Congregationalists teach that Pedobap- 
tists are close communionists, and that the Bap- 
tists are consistent in their practice. 

The Congregationalist, the organ of the New 
England Congregational Churches, says: "Con- 



THE CONGREGATIONALISTS. Ill 

gregationalists have uniformly, until here and 
there an exception has arisen of late years, re- 
quired baptism and church membership as the 
prerequisite of a seat at the table of the Lord. 
It is a part of the false ' liberality ' which now 
prevails in certain quarters, to welcome ' every- 
body who thinks he loves Christ ' to commune in 
his body and blood. Such a course is a first step 
in breaking down that distinction between the 
church and the world, which our Saviour empha- 
sized; and it seems to us it is an unwise and mis- 
taken act for which no Scripture warrant ex- 
ists." (Editorial, July 9th, 1879.) 

Rev. G. W. Wright says : ' ' The intelligent con- 
sistent defence of close communion on the part 
of the Baptists does not proceed on the supposi- 
tion that immersed persons are the only regen- 
erated believers; but they base their refusal to 
invite unbaptized persons to the Lord's table on 
the same grounds of order and expediency on 
which other denominations refuse to invite un- 
baptized persons to commune with them." (Bib- 
liotheca Sacra for 1874.) 

The Independent says: "We have never been 
disposed to charge the Baptist churches with any 
special narrowness or bigotry in their rule of ad- 
mission to the Lord's table. We do not see how 
it differs from that commonly admitted and es- 
tablished among Presbyterian churches." 

Said Henry Ward Beecher, in the Christian 



112 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Union-. "A Pedobaptist, "who believes tbat bap- 
tism is prerequisite to communion, has no right 
to censure the Baptist churches for close com- 
munion. On this question, there is a great deal 
of pulling out of motes by people whose own 
vision is not clear." In another issue of the same 
paper he says: "We have no disposition to join 
in the censure which is so freely bestowed upon 
Baptists for their principle and practice of re- 
stricted communion. Their course on this ques- 
tion, however mistaken, is certainly consistent, 
and we must yield them the respect due to all 
who adhere firmly to their conscientious convic- 
tions." 

The Advance, of Chicago, in an editorial, No- 
vember 10th, 1868, says: "As to the question of 
invitation to the Lord's table, while sympathiz- 
ing with much that is urged in favor of separa- 
ting that ordinance from church membership, and 
throwing it open to all upon their individual re- 
sponsibility after due warning, we have not yet 
seen our way clear to adopt that view. Neither 
New Testament practice, nor a wise regard to 
the effect, appear to us to favor such a method. 
The mode of the institution of the Lord's Sup- 
per, the apostolic explanations and instructions, 
and the primitive practice, agree in presenting it 
as an ordinance of the church distinctively — 
standing as one of the two sacraments which 
mark and bless the professed disciples of Christ. 



THE CONGREGATlONAL,ISTS. 113 

Besides, the idea of each participant coming as 
an individual soul, upon his own responsibility 
merely, robs the ordinance of its distinctive or- 
ganic meaning as a supper — ^that is, a joint meal 
of the members of a family, and not the catching 
up of a morsel by hungry strangers who com- 
pose a chance crowd." 

Listen again to the testimony of an eminent 
Congregationalist, Rev. Dr. Woolcot Caulkins, in 
the Andover Review: "It has never been denied 
that the Puritan way of maintaining the purity 
and doctrinal soundness of the churches is to 
secure a soundly converted membership. There 
is one denomination of Puritans which has never 
deviated a hair's breadth from this way. The 
Baptists have always insisted that regenerate 
persons only ought to receive the sacraments of 
the church. And they have depended absolutely 
upon this provision for the purity and doctrinal 
soundness of their churches. They are strictly 
Congregational in polity. But they have never 
imposed a creed test for membership. It is true 
iihat they have adopted in general confessions 
various standards — a recension of the Westmin- 
ster Confession (Philadelphia, 1742) , and the New 
Hampshire Confession (1833), and some churches 
have confessions of their own. But they ex- 
pressly repudiate the imposition of any formal 
creed upon any church or upon any member." 

To the question whether Baptists have failed 



114 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

to maintain sound doctrine, Dr. Caulkins replies 
by quoting the words of Dr. J. L. Withrow, Pres- 
byterian, Boston: "I suppose there is not a de- 
nomination — I speak in no fulsome praise, but 
literally — I think there is not a denomination of 
Evangelical Christians that is throughout as 
sound theologically as the Baptist denomination. 
I believe it. After carefully considering it, I 
believe I speak the truth. Sound as my own de- 
nomination is, sound as some others are, and I 
do not cast unfriendly reflections upon any par- 
ticular denomination, I do say, in my humble 
judgment, there is not an Evangelical denomina- 
tion in America to-day that is as true to the sim- 
ple, plain Gospel of God, as it is recorded in the 
Word, as the Baptist denomination." 

High praise, this. 

The practice of Congregationalists has been, 
against open communion. They passed in Amer- 
ica the most stringent laws against other denomi- 
nations. They had scarcely landed in Xew Eng- 
land until they were burning witches, whipping 
and banishing Baptists. In 1644, the General 
Court of Massachusetts passed an act in which it- 
was said: "Forasmuch as experience hath plen- 
tifully shown and often proven that since the 
rising of the Anabaptists, about one hundred 
years since, they have been the incendiaries of 
the commonwealths, and the inf ectors of persons 
in matters of religion, and the troublers of 



THE CONGREGATIONALISTS. ll^' 

churches in all places where they have been, 
and that they who have held that the baptizing 
of infants unlawful, have usually held other 
errors or heresies, together with, though they 
have concealed the same till they have spied out 
a fit advantage and opportunity to vent them by 
way of scruple or question * * * it is ordered 
and agreed that, if any person or persons, within 
this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or 
oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about 
secretly to induce others from approbation or- 
use thereof * * * every such person shall ba 
sentenced to banishment. " 

This punishment was visited upon many. 
''Baptists," says Fisher, who is himself a Con- 
gregationalist, ' ' were stigmatized as ' schismati- 
cal persons, filled with the new-fangled conceits 
of their heredical inventions. ' " (Fisher's Church 
Hist., p. 476.) So late as 1679 there was a law 
passed against Baptists being permitted to build 
houses of worship. And when the First Baptist 
Church of Boston erected a house a Synod met 
the following September and gave it as its opin- 
ion that "the cause of the judgments of God 
upon the land was the allowing of those Baptists 
to worship by themselves; " therefore their meet- 
ing house was nailed up, by order of the court, 
in March, 1680, and Dr. Increase Mather pub- 
lished a book in which he said that ' ' Antipedo- 
baptism was a blasted error." 



116 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

At the period of the Revolutionary War Dr. 
George P. Fisher says: "In places where no con- 
gregations had been gathered by dissidents from 
the prevailing system, indi\i.duals, whatever 
their religions belief might be, vrere compelled 
to contribute to the support of the Congrega- 
tional worship there existing. This requkement 
was more and more counted a hardship. It is 
believed that in all of the colonies there were reli- 
gious tests in some form. Even in Pennsylvania 
and Delaware, none could vote save those who 
professed faith in. Christ. When the revolution- 
ary contest began, it was natural that there 
should spring up movements to abolish the reli- 
gious inequalities which were a heritage from 
the past. The Baptists, who were outnumbered 
by none of the religious bodies except the Con- 
gregationalists, and who had felt themselves 
especially aggrieved, at once bestirred them- 
selves in Massachusetts and Virginia to secure 
the repeal of obnoxious restrictions." (Church 
Hist., pp. 559, 560.) 

Those who settled Xew York were as rigid in 
their opinions as their New England brethren. 
"In 1656 it was ordained that all parishes should 
iDe forbidden to hold conventicles not in harmony 
with the established religion as set forth by the 
S3mod of Dort. Fines were imposed on every 
preacher who broke this law, and on every one 



THE CONGREGATIONALISTS. 117 

who should attend a meeting thus prohibited." 
(See Fisher's Ch. Hist., p. 477.) 

With a history as intolerant as this, Puritan- 
ism, or as it was afterwards called Congrega- 
tionalism, could hardly say anything against 
Baptist Close Communion. We never banished 
any one, we have never unchristianized any one, 
all we have asked is that we shall quietly, in the 
fear of God, be allowed to regulate our own 
affairs. 



118 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE TERMS OF COMMUNION IN THE METHODIST 

CHURCH. ARE THE METHODISTS CLOSE 

COMMUNIONISTS? THE WESLEYS 

AND DR. COKE. 

THE Methodist Church, in the same manner 
as the Baptists, requires baptism as a pre- 
requisite to the Lord's Supper. The Methodist 
Discipline, Article 16, lays down the order upon 
which I have been insisting: "There are two 
sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the 
gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper 
of the Lord." 

Dr. Hibbard says: "It is certain that baptism 
is enjoined as the first public duty after disciple- 
ship; or, it may be regarded as the very act it- 
self, or process, of visible discipleship. The very 
position, therefore, that baptism is made to oc- 
cupy, in a relation to a course of Christian duty, 
viz., at the commencement, sufficiently estab- 
lishes the conclusion that the ordinance of the 
supper, and all other observances which have an 
exclusive reference to the Christian profession, 
must come in as subsequent duties. " (Hibbard 
on Baptism, pp. 176, 177.) 

Dr. Adam Clarke says: "As no person could 



THE METHODISTS. 119 

partake of the paschal lamb before he was cir- 
cumcised (Ex. 12:43-48), so, among the early- 
followers of God, no person was permitted to 
come to the eucharist till he had been baptized." 
(Works, vol. 3, pp. 149, 150.) 

Dr. Bennett in his recent able work on Archas- 
ology makes a similar statement. His work is 
edited and endorsed by two other able Method- 
ists, one of whom is a bishop — George R. Crooks 
and Bishop John M. Hurst. Here is the com- 
bined authority of three of the foremost men in 
that denomination in this country. It is further 
stated that the theology of the volume is in 
' ' harmony with the doctrinal standards of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. " Dr. Bennett says : 
' ' None but the believers or the baptized are ad- 
mitted to the. meal — to feast on the flesh and 
blood of Jesus who was made flesh. " (Archae- 
ology, p. 419.) 

The history of the Methodist Church is one of 
close communion. There are no people more 
rigid in their requirements. If the Discipline is 
enforced, I know no one except a Methodist who 
can approach their table. Perhaps the facts I 
here present from their foremost bishops, writ- 
ers and scholars will surprise you. 

The entire Wesley family were violently op- 
posed to all dissenters from the established 
Church of England. They could not tolerate 
Baptists and Presbyterians, and indeed did not 



120 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

fellowship any outside of the Episcopal Church. 
Herbert S. Skeats says of the father of Mr. John 
Lesley: "His father had not only conformed to 
the church, but was one of the most bitter, iin- 
scrnpnlous, and malignant opponents of dissent. *' 
(History Free Churches of England, p. 24.) 

John Wesley was \i.olent in his opposition to 
others. He says very plainly that baptism pre- 
cedes communion. In a sermon which he 
preached upon, ' ' Do this in remembrance of 
me," he laid down baptism as a prerequisite to 
communion. (Wesley's Sermons, vol. 4, p. 153.) 
In his Journal, vol. 1, p. 188, he says: "In the 
ancient church every one who was baptized com- 
municated daily." No Baptist ever insisted 
upon this doctrine more strongly than did Mr. 
Wesley. 

In practice Mr. Wesley was as strict as any 
high-churchman in the land. Communicating 
upon a letter received from one J. M. Bolzins, he 
says: "And yet this very man, when I was in 
Savannah, did I refuse to admit to the Lord's 
table, because he was not baptized by a minister 
who had been episcopally ordained. Can any 
one carry high-church zeal farther than this? " 
(Journal, vol. 1, p. 466.) I should not only say 
that the door was closed, but locked and barred. 

Wesley wrote his brother-in-law, Wesley Hall, 
in 1745 : ' * We believe it would not be right for us 
to administer either baptism or the Lord's Sup- 



THE METHODISTS. 121 

per, unless we had a conunission so to do from 
those bishops whom we apprehend to be in a 
succession from the apostles." (Tyerman's Life 
and Times of Wesley, vol. 1, p. 496.) 

Here is another specimen of close communion. 
It occurred in Norwich, England, April 1st, 1759. 
Mr. Wesley says: ''I met all at six, requiring 
every one to show his ticket when he came in; a 
thing they never had heard of before. I likewise 
insisted on another strange regulation; that the 
men and women should sit apart. A third was 
made the same day. It had been a custom ever 
since the tabernacle was built, to have the gal- 
leries full of spectators while the Lord's Supper 
was administered. This I judged highly im- 
proper and therefore ordered none to be admit- 
ted, but those who desired to communicate." 
(Journal, vol. 2, p. 17.) 

About this time Mr. Wesley rebaptized five 
Presbyterians, and called their baptism lay bap- 
tism, because they had not been episcopally or- 
dained. I will let Bishop McTyeire recite this 
interesting occurrance. Says the Bishop: "In- 
credible as it may seem, John Wesley, in that 
very church, a few days afterward solemnly and 
rather demonstratively rebaptized five Presby- 
terians, who had received lay baptism in their 
infancy — that is, in the jargon of apostolic suc- 
cession, they had been baptized by Dissenting 
ministers — possibly by his own grandfather. Dr. 



122 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Annesley. Charles, about the same tune, gave 
episcopal baptism, to a woman who was dissatis- 
fied with her lay baptism; denominating the or- 
dinance 'hypothetical baptism' — that is. Chris- 
tian baptism, provided the former administration 
of the ordinance by a Dissenting minister were 
not in. accordance with the mind of Glod. " (Mc- 
Tyeire's Hist. Method., pp. 147, 148.) 

That ought to be close enough to satisfy our 
Presbyterian brethren. 

I read in Tyerman's Oxford Methodists, preface, 
page vi: ''Even in Georgia, Wesley excluded 
Dissenters from the holy communion, on the 
ground that they had not been properly bap- 
tized, and he would himself baptize only by im- 
mersion, unless the child or person was in a 
weak state of health." 

Skeats gives a somewhat somber account of 
this memorable trip of Mr. Wesley to Georgia. 
He says : ' ' He went there with a noble and self- 
sacrificing purpose, but with all of the ecclesi- 
astical tendencies of a High Churchman, com- 
bined with a somewhat superstitious faith in 
what may be described as Christian magic. In- 
stances of the latter may be found in the whole 
of his journals. The first occurs in his voyage 
to Georgia. A woman who thought she was 
dying, wished to receive the communion. 'At 
the hour of receiving, ' says Wesley, ' she began 
to recover, and in a few days was entirely out of 



THE METHODISTS. 123 

'danger. ' One of his first acts of ministerial duty 
in Georgia was to baptize an infant. ' Tlie child 
was ill, ' remarks Wesley, ' then, but recovered 
from that hour. ' His visit to America was a fail- 
ure, and his rigid and priestly adherence to the 
rubrics of the Established Church, which brought 
upon him a law- suit, ultimately compelled his 
return to England." (Hist. Free Churches of 
Eng., pp. 252, 253.) 

In fact, so severe was Mr. Wesley that he was 
accused of being a papist. Southey, who wrote 
a standard life of Wesley, says: ''He was ac- 
cused of making his sermons so many satires 
upon particular persons, and for this cause his 
auditors fell off; for, though one might have been 
Tery well pleased to hear the others preached 
at, no person liked the chance of being made the 
mark himself. All the quarrels which had oc- 
curred since his arrival were occasioned, it was 
affirmed, by his intermeddling conduct. ' Beside, ' 
said a plain speaker, to him, 'the people say 
they are Protestants; but as for you, they can- 
not tell what religion you are of: they never 
heard of such religion before, and they do not 
know what to make of it.' " (Southey's Life of 
Wesley, vol. 1, p. 115.) In fact, "he was looked 
upon," says Tyerman, "as a Roman Catholic — 
(1) Because he rigidly excluded all Dissenters 
from the holy communion, until they first gave 
up their faith and principles, and, like Richard 



124 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Turner and his sons, submitted to be rebaptized. 
by liira; (2) Because Roman Catholics were re- 
ceived by him as saints; (3) Because he endeav- 
ored to establish and enforce confession, pen- 
ance, and mortification; mixed wine with water 
at the sacrament; and appointed deaconesses in 
accordance with what he called the Apostolic 
Constitutions. He was in fact, a Puseyite, an 
hundred years before Dr. Pusey was born. " (Life 
of Wesley, vol. 1, pp. 147, 148.) And Wesley con- 
fessed that for ten years he was a papist and 
knew it not. 

Of the Oxford Methodists the late Bishop Mc- 
Tyeire, of the Southern Methodist Church, says : 
"He maintained the doctrine of apostolic suc- 
cession, and believed no one had authority to 
administer the sacraments who was not episco- 
pally ordained. He religiously observed saint- 
days and holidays, and excluded Dissenters from 
the holy communion, on the ground that they 
had not been properly baptized. He observed 
ecclesiastical discipline to the minutest points, 
and was scrupulously strict in practicing rubrics 
and canons * * * Sacramentarian, ritualist, 
legalist: What lack I yet?" (Hist. Methodism, 
p. 62.) 

Bishop McTyeire sums Wesley up as a close 
communionist of the strictest character. Meth- 
odists do not get open communion from Mr. 
Weslej^. Says the Bishop : ' ' Following a primi- 



THE METHODISTS. 125 

tive but obsolete rubric, he would baptize chil- 
dren only by immersion; nor could he be induced 
to depart from this mode unless the parents 
would certify that the child was weakly. Per- 
sons were not allowed to act as sponsors who 
were not communicants. No baptism was recog- 
nized as valid unless performed by a minister 
episcopally ordained; and those who had allowed 
their children to be baptized in any other manner 
were earnestly exhorted to have them rebap- 
tized. His rigor extended even so far as to re- 
fuse the Lord's Supper to one of the most devout 
men of the settlement, who had not been bap- 
tized by an episcopally ordained minister; and 
the burial service itself was denied to such as 
died with what he deemed unorthodox baptism. " 
(Hist. Method., p. 90.) 

The Baptists never did require as much as is 
here demanded. Mr. Wesley demanded baptism, 
even insisted that communicants must be bap- 
tized by a minister episcopally ordained. He 
excluded from his table all Dissenters, that is to 
say Baptists, Presbyterians, and others, would 
not permit spectators, and required a ticket for 
admission. ' ' Can any one carry high -church zeal 
farther than this? " 

Charles Wesley was even more violent in his 
feelings than was John Wesley. He wrote to one 
of his best friends that he would rather see him 
*' smiling in his coffin '' than to see him a dissent- 



* ■X- 



126 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

ing (or Presbyterian) preacher. Bishop Mc- 
Tyeire says: "His high-church feelings could 
hardly endure the innovation of lay preaching; 
but the administration of the sacraments by men 
not episcopally ordained was quite out of the 
question; it would make Dissenters out of them 
ipso facto, and bring on separation. He wrote to 
John Nelson: 'John, I love thee from my heart; 
yet, rather than see thee a Dissenting minister, 
I wish to see thee smiling in thy coffin. ' 
Yet this good man — this primitive Methodisi 
was so wedded to the Established Church that 
unless John Nelson, and others like him, could 
be 'episcopally ordained' he would rather see 
John ' smiling in his coffin ' than upon a Presby- 
terial ordination administer baptism or the- 
Lord's Supper to a Methodist congregation." 
(Hist. Method., pp. 181, 182.) 

He not only said he would rather see his 
friend " smiling in his coffin" than to see him a 
Presbyterian preacher; but he likewise said he 
would rather see his children Roman Catholics 
than Dissenters. Skeats says: "Charles, who 
was always ' harping on the Established Church, ' 
remarked that he would sooner see his children 
Roman Catholics than Protestant Dissenters. 
He applied, publicly, in one of his sermons, the 
shipwreck of Paul to the difficulty of being saved 
out of the Church of England." (Hist. Fre& 
Churches of Eng., p. 382.) 



THE METHODISTS. 127 

His biographer sums up his life in these words: 
* ' He denied the validity of baptism when admin- 
istered by any except the Episcopal clergy, to 
whatever section of the church universal the ad- 
ministrator might belong; calling it 'lay bap- 
tism, ' and urging upon those who had received 
it the necessity of being re-baptized. Healthy 
children, he insisted upon baptizing by trine im- 
mersion, plunging them three times into the 
water." (Jackson's Life of Charles Wesley, voL 

1, p. 54.) 

Charles Wesley was a ''close communionist " 
with a vengeance. Indeed, I have shown by un- 
doubted authority that the whole Wesley family 
were close communionists. 

The first Methodist Conference believed as Mr. 
Wesley did on this subject. The ten preachers 
present did not consider themselves as having 
received episcopal ordination: and hence had no 
right to administer baptism or the Lord's Sup- 
per. To this end they passed the following 
rules: "1. Every preacher who acts in connec- 
tion with Mr. Wesley and the brethren who labor 
in America is strictly to avoid administering the 
ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

2. All people among whom we labor are to be 
earnestly exhorted to attend the church (mean- 
ing, of course, the Episcopal church), and to re- 
ceive the ordinances there; but in a particular 
manner to press the people in Maryland and Vir- 



128 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 



ginia to the observance of this muiute." (Mc- 
Tyeire's Hist. Meth., p. 276.) 

Previous to this tune the Methodists did not 
pretend to be anything except a society in the 
Church of England; but the Revolutionary War 
had overthrown that Church in America. The 
Methodists were thus left without a church or 
ordinances. An appeal was made to Mr. "Wesley. 
He hesitated. At length Mr. Wesley selected a 
young man, and wrote Dr. Lowth, Bishop of Lon- 
don, and asked for his ordination, which the 
Bishop did not grant. ' ' Thereupon, on August 
10, 1780, he wrote a letter to the bishop, pointing 
out the great evil he had done to spiritual religion 
in America by that refusal. Before finishing his 
letter, Mr. Wesley thus plainly writes his mind: 
Your lordship did not see good to ordain the 
pious young man I recommended, but your lord- 
ship did see good to ordain and send into Amer- 
ica other persons who knew something of Greek 
and Latin, but who knew no more of saving souls 
than of catching whales. In this respect I 
mourn for poor America." (McTyeire's Hist. 
Method., p. 318.) 

On account of this peculiar state of affairs in 
America there was great strife among the Meth- 
odists. Stevens gives this account: "Meanwhile 
none of our preachers being ordauied, the socie- 
ties were dependent upon the clergy of the Eng- 
lish church in this country for the sacraments. 



THE METHODISTS. 129 

At the Revolution most of these left the country, 
and the Methodists were then deprived of the 
sacraments. Many insisted upon having them 
without ordination. A general strife ensued, a 
large portion of the Southern church revolted. 
A compromise was effected till they could apply 
to Mr. Wesley for a more thorough arrange- 
ment, with powers to ordain and minister the 
sacraments. In meeting their demand he or- 
dained and sent over Dr. Coke, with episcopal 
powers, under the name of superintendent, to 
ordain Francis Asbury a 'joint superintendent' 
^nd ordain the preachers to the office of deacons 
and elders." (Church Polity, pp. 86, 87.) But 
the whole thing resulted in the declaration that 
baptism administered by a man with episcopal 
ordination was necessary to the Lord's Supper. 

The so-called ordination, mentioned above, 
of Dr. Coke by Mr. Wesley is one of the stran- 
gest events in history; but it reveals a chapter 
on close communion unparalleled in the history 
of the world. 

To understand these matters it must be recol- 
lected that Dr. Coke was a man of great ambi- 
tion; and the obtaining the office of a bishop 
seems to have been his absorbing aim. I wish to 
state that only which can be clearly proved. 
Tyerman, who is himself a noted Methodist, 
says: ''With the highest respect for Dr. Coke, 
and his general excellences, it is no detraction to 



130 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

assert, that he was dangerously ambitious, and 
that the height of his ambition was to be a 
bishop." (Life of Wesley, vol. 3, p. 434.) 

Things had reached such a pass among the 
Methodists of the United States that something 
must be done. There was no one authorized 
among them to administer baptism or the 
Lord's Supper. Wesley was already well ad- 
vanced in years, and so Dr. Coke wrote Mr. 
Wesley proposing to go to America for him. 
Wesley at length decided to make Coke ' ' super- 
intendent" of the work in America. Such a 
high- churchman was Dr. Coke that he appears 
to have had scruples whether Mr. Wesley had 
any such power. Stevens says : ' ' When Mr. 
Wesley proposed to Dr. Coke his ordination to 
this new office, some six or seven months before 
it was confirmed, the doctor was startled (as 
Drew tells us in his life of Coke), and doubted 
Wesley's authority to ordain him, as Wesley him- 
self was not a bishop. " (Church Polity, pp. 92, 93. ) 

These scruples appear to have speedily passed 
away, and Dr. Coke was not only anxious to be 
" superintendent," but bishop as well. He then 
applied to Wesley for ordination, but Wesley 
possessed no such power. Tyerman says: ' 'There 
can be no question that there is force in Dr. 
Whitehead's critique, that 'Dr. Coke had the 
same right to ordain Mr. Wesley, that Mr. Wesley 
had to ordain Dr. Coke.' " Our author continues: 



THE METHODISTS. 131 

' ' The ordination of Dr. Coke is a perplexing 
puzzle. Coke had been already ordained a dea- 
con and a priest of the Church of England; and 
hence, his ministerial status was the same as 
Wesley's. What further ordination was needed? 
Wesley intended none; but Coke wished it."' 
(Life of Wesley, vol. 3, p. 432.) 

Upon this subject Dr. Whitehead, who wrote 
the official Life of Wesley, says: "That the per- 
son who advised the measure, would be proved, 
to have been a felon to Methodism, and to have 
struck an assassin's knife into the vitals of its 
body." (Hawk's Eccl. Hist., vol. 1, p. 171.) 

Wesley was bitterly opposed to the office of 
bishop. In. a letter to Francis Asbury, dated 
London, September 20th, 1788, he says: ''How 
can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called 
a bishop? I shudder and start at the very 
thought. Men may call me a knave or a fool; a 
rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content: but they 
shall never, by my consent, call me a bishop. 
For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, 
put a full end to this. " 

The facts are these: Wesley wanted some one 
to go to America, and Dr. Coke wanted to go. 
Dr. Coke stated that if Wesley would send him 
as his official representative he would be received 
in America. To this end Wesley privately laid 
his hands upon Coke and called him "superin- 
tendent." Wesley did not ordain him, nor any 



132 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

one else, bishop; nor was Coke called a bishop 
for a number of years, and never by Wesley's 
authority* 

Tyerman iindoiibtedly gives a correct history 
of this affair. He says : ' ' Shall Wesley or some 
one else go from England to give them ordina; 
tion? Wesley, a man of action, decided to send 
Coke,and Coke consented; but before starting, he 
ivished to have an additional ordination himself. 
What was that ordination to be ? The only one 
possible was this. Wesley was the venerable 
father of the 15,000 Methodists in America. He 
was not able to visit them himself; but sends 
them Dr. Coke. The doctor pretends, that it is 
more than possible, that some of the American 
preachers and societies will refuse his authority. 
To remove this objection, Wesley, at Bristol, in 
a private room, holds a religious service, puts 
his hands upon the head of Coke, and (to use his 
own words) sets him apart as a superintendent of 
the work in America, and gives him a written 
i^estimonial to that effect. This was all that 
Wesley did, and all that Wesley meant; but we 
greatly doubt that it was all that the departing 
envoy wished." (Life of Wesley, vol. 3, p. 433.) 

Dr. Coke not only knew that Wesley did not 
ordain him a bishop, but made repeated efforts 
to be made a bishop of the Episcopal Church. I 
shall mention some of these attempts. 

Dr. Coke appealed to Bishop White of Penn- 



THE METHODISTS. 133 

sylvania to give him Episcopal ordination. Here 
is a part of his letter to the bishop : ' ' He (Mr. 
Wesley) did indeed solemnly invest me, so far as 
he had the right so to do, with Episcopal au- 
thority, but did not intend, I think, that our en- 
tire separation should take place. -^ * * Our 
ordained ministers will not, ought not, to give up 
the right of administering the sacraments: I do 
not think the generality of them, perhaps none 
of them, would refuse to submit to a reordina- 
tion, if other hinderances (a classical education) 
were removed out of the way. " (White's Memoirs 
of the Protestant Epis. Church, pp. 424-9.) He 
further requested that Bishop White would burn 
this letter. 

Tyerman, in commenting upon this, says: 
' ' Some years after this, Coke, unknown to Wes- 
ley and Asbury, addressed a confidential letter 
to Dr. White, bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church of Pennsylvania, which, if it meant any- 
thing, meant that he would like the Methodists 
of America to be reunited to the English Church, 
on condition that he himself was ordained to be 
their bishop." (Life of Wesley, vol. 3, p. 434.) 

On March 29th, 1799, Dr. Coke wrote the 
Bishop of London, and asked him for episcopal 
ordination. In that letter he says : ' 'A very con- 
siderable part of our society have imbibed a deep 
prejudice against receiving the Lord's Supper 
from the hands of immoral clergymen. The 



134 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

word immoral they consider in a very extensive 
sense, as including all those who frequent card- 
tables, balls, horse-racing, theaters, and other 
places of fashionable amusements. I have found 
it in vain to urge to them that the validity of the 
ordinance does not depend upon the piety or even 
the morality of the minister; all of my argu- 
ments have had no effect. In consequence of 
this, petitions were sent, immediately after the 
death of Mr. Wesley, from different Societies to 
our Annual Conferences, requesting that they 
no-ight receive the Lord's Supper from their own 
preachers, or such as Conference might appoint 
to administer it to them. For two years this 
point was combatted with success; but some of 
our leading friends conceiving that a few exempt 
cases might be allowed, opposition to the meas- 
ure was overruled. These exempt cases, as had 
been foreseen, annually increased; so that now 
a considerable number of our body have deviated 
in this instance from the Established Church; 
and I plainly perceive, that this deviation, un- 
less prevented, will, in time, bring about a uni- 
versal separation from the Establishment. 

' ' But how can this be prevented? I am inclined 
to think, that if a given number of our leading 
preachers, proposed by our General Conference, 
were to be ordained, and permitted to travel 
through our connection, and administer the Sac- 
raments to those societies who have been thus 



THE METHODISTS. 135 

prejudiced as above, every difficulty would be 
removed. I have no doubt that the people would 
be universally satisfied. The men of greatest 
influence in the connection would, I am sure, 
unite with me; and every deviation from the 
Church of England would be done away. 

" In a letter which a few months past I took 
the liberty of writing to your lordship, on the 
business of our societies in Jersey, I observed, 
that for a little time I had been warped from my 
attachment from the Church of England, in con- 
sequence of my visiting the States of America; 
but like a bow too much bent, I have again re- 
turned. But I return with a full conviction that 
our numerous societies in America would have 
been a regular Presbyterian church, if Mr. Wes- 
ley and myself had not taken the steps which we 
judged it necessary to adopt." (Drew's Life of 
Coke, pp. 289, 290.) The Doctor then set the 
time that he would call upon the bishop and re- 
ceive ordination. The bishop waited nearly a 
month before he replied to this letter, then de- 
clined to accede to this request, and stated that 
if they had " such tender consciences " about re- 
ceiving the Lord's Supper from ' ' immoral men '' 
the same thing ought to apply to ordination as 
well. 

These failures did not discourage him. Almost 
to the hour of his death. Dr. Coke knocked at 
the Episcopal door for ordination. Tyerman 



136 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

gives these further exaraples: "In 1794, he se- 
cretly summoned a meetmg, at Litchfield, of the 
most influential of English preachers, and passed 
a resolution, that the conference should appoint 
an order of bishops, to ordain deacons and elders, 
he himself, of course, expecting to be a member 
of the prelatical brotherhood. And again, it is 
a well-known fact, that, within twelve months of 
his lamented death, he wrote to the Earl of 
Liverpool, stating that he was willing to return 
most fully into the bosom of the Established 
Church, on condition, that his royal highness 
the Prince Regent, and the government would 
appoint him their bishop in India. These are 
unpleasant facts; which we would rather have 
consigned to oblivion, had they not been neces- 
sary to vindicate Wesley from the huge incon- 
sistency of ordaining a co-equal presbyter to be 
a bishop." (Life of Wesley, vol. 3, pp. 434, 435.) 
The point I make is very clear. Dr. Coke did 
not think a man that had not received Episcopal 
ordination had a right to administer baptism and 
the Lord's Supper. In fact no man's high-church 
zeal outran his. Drew says of him: "In describ- 
ing the character of the clergy of America, he 
seems to have forgotten that he was still an 
Englishman; and he introduced his observations 
in a manner, that would seem, from his omitting, 
in the ardour of his zeal, the restrictive applica- 
tion, to imply an universal characteristic. On 



THE METHODISTS. 137 

the subject of an Episcopal Establishment, under 
the immediate auspices of the State, he was 
equally negligent in marking the peculiar situa- 
tions of Great Britain and the United States; 
and he seemed hardly to be aware of the difficulty 
of vindicating the appendages of monarchy upon 
republican ground, or of expatiating upon the 
rights of independence on the continent without 
interfering with the regulations established in 
his native land." (Life of Coke, p. 97.) 

The very Discipline that he prepared was of 
the closest order. This is found in it: "Persons 
not belonging to the society may be admitted, 
provided they procure a recommendation from 
an Elder or a Deacon. But in no case is any per- 
son to be admitted, who is guilty of practices, for 
which, if a member he would be excluded from a 
Methodist society. " (Drew's Life of Coke, p. 113. ) 
The plain English of this is: An outsider may 
commune with us, provided he is willing to be a 
Methodist. 



138 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE TERMS OF COMMUNION IN THE METHODIST 
CHURCH. ARE THE METHODISTS CLOSE COM- 
MUNIONISTS? ASBURY AND HEDDING. THE 
DISCIPLINE. LIVING BISHOPS. WATSON AND 
OTHERS. 

ASBURY, who was the second bishop of the 
Methodist Church, was likewise a "close 
conimunionist. " He had serious doubts about be- 
ing ordained as "superintendent" by Dr. Coke. 
Dr. Hawks says: "On the 3d of November, 1784, 
Dr. Coke arrived in New York, and on the 14th 
met Mr. Asbury for the first time, who, upon 
learning of the new plan expressed strong doubts 
concerning it." (Hist. Eccl. U. S., vol. 1, p. 166.) 
When some of the Methodists had revolted 
against the Episcopalians, and went about to or- 
dain preachers of their own, it was Asbury who 
opposed and finally defeated the measure. Says 
Drew : ' ' Mr. Asbury in the meanwhile, who had 
not yet shaken ofi the rusty fetters of 'Apostolic 
Succession,' found himself comparatively de- 
serted by those whose respect for him still re- 
mained undiminished. Against the illegality of 
their proceedings he bore a public testimony, 
denying the authority by which the preachers 



THE METHODISTS. 139 

acted, and declaring the ordination to which, they 
had given existence, invalid. With individuals 
his arguments had weight, and many hesitated 
to follow the measure they had adopted. In this 
manner he proceeded, until he had proselyted 
some, had silenced others, and had shaken the 
faith of all; so that at a subsequent conference, 
he found means to procure a vote, which declared 
the former ordination unscriptural. " 

It will thus appear that Asbury, like Coke, was 
a believer in an Episcopal ordination as neces- 
sary for the administration of baptism and the 
Lord's Supper. 

In their notes on the Discipline Asbury and 
Coke say: ''We must also observe, that our 
elders should be very cautious how they admit to 
the communion persons who are not in our so- 
ciety. It would be highly injurious to our breth- 
ren if we suffered any to partake of the Lord's 
Supper with them whom we would not readily 
admit into our society on application made to us. 
Those whom we judge unfit to partake of our 
profitable, prudential means of grace, we would 
most certainly think improper to be partakers of 
an ordinance which has been expressly instituted 
by Christ himself." (History of the Discipline, 
p. 377.) 

Now if this bit of history proves anything, it 
is, that the Wesleys, Coke and Asbury, were all 
close communionists in the strictest sense of 



140 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

that term. They regarded Baptists and Pres- 
byterians as unbaptized, excluded Dissenters 
from the table, and were zealous for all other 
high-chui'ch practices. In fact for seven years 
after its organization the Methodist Church was 
without the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's 
Supper, simply because they would not recognize 
any save Episcopal ordination. This they did 
not have and could not get. If the Methodists- 
do not hold these things to-day, they have only 
the Episcopalians to thank for not bestowing 
upon them the much coveted gift of Episcopal 
ordination. 

But close communion did not stop here. The 
old Discipline was very stringent in its require- 
ments. The following relates to the Lord's- 
Supper : 

"Question. Are there any directions to be 
given concerning the administration of the Lord's 
Supper? 

"Answer 1. Let those who have scruples con- 
cerning the receiving of it kneeling, be permitted 
to receive it either standing or sitting. 

"2. Let no person that is not a member of our 
church be admitted to the communion, without 
examination, and some token given by an elder 
or deacon. 

' ' 3". No person shall be admitted to the Lord's 
Supper among us, who is guilty of any practice 



THE METHODISTS. 141 

for which we would exclude a member of our 
church." 

Certainly no Baptist or Presbyterian would 
care to be examined by an "elder or deacon." 
Bishop Hedding in an able discourse says of 
these rules: "Is it proper for a preacher to give 
•out a general invitation in the congregation to 
members in good standing in other churches to 
come to the Lord's Supper? " To this the Bishop 
gives the following answer: "No; for the most 
unworthy persons are apt to think themselves in 
good standing, and sometimes persons who are 
not members of any church will take the liberty 
from such an invitation to come. And again, 
there are some communities called churches, 
which, from heretical doctrines or immoral prac- 
tices, have no claim to the privileges of Chris- 
tians, and ought not to be admitted to the com- 
TCLunion of any Christian people. The rule in 
that case is as follows: 2. Let no person be ad- 
mitted to the communion without examination, 
and some token given by an elder or deacon. 
3. No person shall be admitted to the Lord's 
Supper among us who is guilty of any practice 
for which we would exclude a member of our 
church." (Administration of the Discipline, pp. 
72, 73.) 

But the most stringent of these rules is still in 
force. The Discipline now says: "No person 
shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among us 



142 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

who is guilty of any practice for which, we would 
exclude a member of our church." (Discipline, 
1890, sec. 408, p. 257.) 

The question arises : For what would a mem- 
ber be excluded from the Methodist Church? 
The Discipline answers : A member shall be ex- 
cluded for endeavoring "to sow dissension in 
any of our Societies by inveighing against either 
our doctrine or discipline." (Dis., 1890, sec. 283, 
p. 165.) 

It is said of a traveling preacher: "What shall 
be done with those ministers or preachers who 
hold and disseminate, publicly or privately, doc- 
trines which are contrary to our Articles of 
Religion? 

' ' Let the same process be observed as in the 
case of immorality." (Sec. 260, p. 152.) 

Now read this : ' ' No person shall be admitted 
to the Lord's Supper among us who is guilty of 
any practice for which we would exclude a mem- 
ber of our Church." (Dis., sec. 408, p. 257.) 

It is quite certain that if these rules were en* 
forced that no one save a Methodist could ap- 
proach a Methodist communion table. There 
are many things a Baptist would reject in the 
Discipline and Articles of Faith. The Presby- 
terians could not abide the Arminianism and 
Episcopacy of the book. The truth is that a 
man holding the Presbyterian view of the Scrip- 
tures would be excluded from a Methodist 



THE METHODISTS. 143 

Church, on the enforcement of these rules, as 
immoral. And the Discipline expressly says that 
if a man holds views contrary to the Articles of 
Faith he shall not approach the Lord's Table. 

I suppose that no creed in Christendom has 
been so often revised and radically changed as 
has been the Methodist Discipline. With all of 
its changes and emendations it is still a close 
communion book. I shall mention other par- 
ticulars. 

1. The Methodists are exclusive in dress. 
''The putting on of gold and costly apparel" is 
forbidden. (Sec. 29, p. 30. ) The older Disciplines 
went so far as to prescribe the cut of a woman's 
bonnet and the number of ruffl.es on her dress. 

2. The Methodists are exclusive in their class- 
meetings. "Question 1. "What directions are 
given concerning class-meetings? Answer 1. Let 
the membership of every church, wherever it is 
practicable, be divided into smaller companies, 
called classes, according to their respective 
places of abode; and let the members be exhorted 
to attend the meeting of the same." (Sec. 229, 
p. 135.) 

3. The Methodists are exclusive in their love 
feasts. ' ' Question : What directions are given 
concerning love feasts? Answer 1. Love feasts 
shall be held quarterly, or at such other times as 
the preacher in charge may consider expedient, 
with closed doors, to which, besides Church-mem- 



144 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

bers, other serious persons may be admitted by 
him." (Sec. 227, p. 134.) 

4. The Methodist church is exclusive in song 
books. Let the people "use our own Hymn and 
Tune Books." (Sec. 223, p. 133.) 

5. The Methodist church is exclusive in trad- 
ing. " It is expected of all who continue in these 
societies that they should continue to evidence 
their desire of salvation. 

"By doing good, especially to them that are 
of the household of faith, or groaning to be 
SO; employing them preferably to others, buying 
one of another, helping each other in business; 
and so much the more because the world will 
love its own, and them only.'' (Sec. 29, pp. 30, 31.) 

This is a remarkable case of boycotting. 

6. The Methodists are exclusive in their Sun- 
day-schools. "Question: What directions shall 
be given concerning Sunday-schools? 

"Answer 1. Let Sunday-schools be formed in 
all our congregations where ten persons can be 
collected for that purpose; and let mission 
schools be formed wherever practicable. 

"Answer 2. Let all the Sunday-schools con- 
nected with our congregations be under the con- 
trol of our own church; and let them use our own 
Catechisms, Question Books, and periodical literature. 

"Answer 3. The Quarterly Conference of each 
circuit and station shall be a Board of Managers, 
having the supervision of all of the Sunday- 



THE METHODISTS. 145 

schools within its bounds. It shall elect at the 
fourth Quarterly Conference of each year, on 
nomination of the preacher in charge, a superin- 
tendent for each Sunday-school under its care: 
provided, that when a vacancy occurs in the su- 
perintendency of any Sunday-school during the 
interim of the Quarterly Conference, the preacher 
in charge shall appoint a superintendent to serve 
until the meeting of the next Quarterly Confer- 
ence: and provided, also, that the preacher in 
charge shall appoint a superintendent for any 
new school that may be organized between the 
meetings of the Quarterly Conference. 

' 'Answer 4. It shall be the duty of the preacher 
in charge of every circuit and station to be pres- 
ent in all of the Sunday-schools in his charge as 
often as practicable, to catechise the children, 
to preach to them as often as convenient, to ex- 
hort them to attend regularly upon divine ser- 
vice, to see that they are instructed in the doctrines 
and usages of our Church, and to look after their 
spiritual welfare as a part of his regular pastoral 
charge. He shall also lay before the Quarterly 
Conference, at each quarterly meeting, to be en- 
tered upon its journal, a written statement of the 
number and state of the Sunday-school in his 
charge, and the pastoral instruction of children, 
and make a report of the same to his Annual 
Conference. " 

10 



146 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Everything abont this Sunday-school has the 
principle of close communion. 

Here are six specifications of close commun- 
ion. They cover the most minute details of 
human life, even down to the minor particular of 
wearing apparel. As long as these rules and 
regulations stand on the Methodist law book it 
does not become them to discuss Baptist close 
communion. 

It is so understood by the Bishops. 

Kev. Thos. Bowman, D.D., Bishop of the M. E.. 
Church, says: 

St. Louis, May, 31, 1892. 

Dear Brother: The following are the words we 
use, when inviting people to the sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper: ''Ye that do truly and ear- 
nestly repent of your sins and are in love and in 
charity with your neighbors and intend to lead a 
new life, following the commandments of God 
and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; 
draw near with faith, aaid take this Holy Sacra- 
ment to your comfort. " 

Prom this you will see: 

1. That we expect those who come to be Chris- 
tians. 

2. We suppose them to be baptized. 

3. As a rule we expect them to be members of 
some church. In our church, those who are 
probationers are included. 

With best wishes yours, 

Thos. Bowman. 



THE METHODISTS. 147 

Eev. E. R. Hendrix, Bishop of the M. E. 
Church South, says: 

Kansas City, Mo., May 12th, 1892. 
Mr. J. T. Christian, Jackson, Miss. : 

Dear Sir: In answer to yours of the 5th inst. ^ 
which came during my absence from home, I will 
say that our invitation to the Lord's Supper is: 
in this language : ' ' Ye that do truly and earnestly 
repent of your sins, and are in love and charity 
with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new 
life, following the commandments of God and 
walking from henceforth in his holy ways, draw 
near with faith, and take the holy sacrament to 
your comfort, and make your humble confession 
to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your 
knees." 

As you will see such an invitation implies a 
holy life which is supreme. While as a rule 
only church members (which means baptized 
persons) partake of the Lord's Supper, yet where 
a penitent is deeply perplexed and is slow to 
obtain pardon for his sins, a wise pastor some- 
times brings him to the test of the sacrament 
where in the very act of presenting himself there 
have been cases of happy conversion, the weak 
faith being strengthened by the outward and 
visible signs which enable the penitent to discern 
the Lord's body. 

Yours sincerely, 

E. R. Hendrix. 



148 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Or as Bishop J. C. Keener, of New Orleans, 
writes under date of May 12tli, 1892 : ' 'No change 
in the conditions for the last one hundred years. " 

I will quote two recent writers of the Method- 
ist Church. 

Rev. Miles G. Bullock, a prominent Methodist 
writer of New York, says on this subject in a 
book with the title, ''What Christians Believe": 
' 'A Baptist maintains that only believers are to 
be baptized; hence, infant baptism is nonsense; 
baptism is baptism by immersion; baptized be- 
lievers only have any right to the Lord's Supper. 
How can they, therefore, consistently invite or 
allow me, having only been sprinkled, and that 
in infancy, to commune with them? Do they 
keep me away from the Lord's Table, or is it I 
who am responsible for neglect of this sacra- 
ment, having refused to comply with the essen- 
tial conditions of its reception? Close commun- 
ion, as it is generally termed, is the only logical 
and consistent course for Baptist churches to 
pursue. If their premises are right, the conclu- 
sion is surely just as it should be. 'But,' says 
one, whose prejudices are all awake, ' why will 
they not commune with those believers in other 
churches who have been immersed? ' For the 
consistent reason that such persons have violated 
the New Testament order in communing with 
unbaptized believers, and are, therefore, not 
considered in good standing. They do not feel 



THE METHODISTS. 149 

willing to countenance such laxity in Christian 
discipline. Let us honor them for stern stead- 
fastness in maintaining what they believe to be ^ 
a Bible precept, rather than criticise and cen- 
sure because they differ with us concerning the 
intent and mode of Christian baptism, and believe 
it to be an irreparable condition of coming to the 
Lord's Supper." 

The New York Christian Advocate said in an 
editorial in 1884 : ' 'We do not believe in adminis- 
tering the sacrament to children, nor to any one 
that, on their personal character, moral or men- 
tal, are not, in the opinion of the church, suitable 
to be received intelligently on probation in the 
church, with reference to admission into full 
membership, if they live consistent Christian 
lives and show that they have been converted." 

It is therefore evident not only that the Meth- 
odist Church has rules governing the approach 
to the Lord's table, but if they were enforced, 
no one save a Methodist could commune at it. 

If any thing is proved by these extracts it is 
that every church has the right to judge of the 
qualifications of those who come to its table. I 
would go further and state that the Lord's Sup- 
per is placed within, and directly under the con- 
trol of the church. ''The eucharist," says Dr. 
Hibbard, ' 'is a church ordinance and as such can 
be properly participated in only by church mem- 
bers. As a church ordinance, it never can be 



150 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

carried out of the church.. This is so evident 
that no words can make it more plain, or add to 
its force." (Baptism, p. 185). 

In principle are the Baptists any more close 
ihan are the Methodists? I shall let Dr. Hib- 
hard give answer. He says: "Before enter- 
ing upon the argument before us, it is just 
lo remark that in one xwinciple the Baptists and 
Fedobaptists churches agree. Tliey both agree in 
rejecting from communion at the table of the Lord 
and in denying the rights of church felloivship to 
<dl who have not been baptized. Valid baptism 
they consider as essential to constitute visible 
church membership. This also we hold. The 
only question, then, that here divides us, is, 
What is essential to valid baptism? The Bap- 
tists, in passing the sweeping sentence of dis- 
franchisement upon all other Christian churches, 
have acted upon a principle held in common with 
all other Christian churches; viz., that baptism 
is essential to church membership. They have 
denied our baptism, and, as unbaptized persons, 
we have been excluded from their table. That 
they err greatly in their views of baptism, we, 
of course believe. 

' ^But according to th^ir vieivs of baptism, they cer- 
tainly are consistent in restricting thus their com- 
munion. "We would not be understood as passing 
a judgment of approval upon then* course; but 
we say, their views of baptism force them upon 



THE METHODISTS. 151 

the groiind of strict conununion, and herein they 
act upon the same principle as other churches, i.e., 
they admit only those whom they deem baptized 
persons to the communion table. Of course they 
must be their own judges as to what baptism is. 
It is evident that, according to our views of bap- 
tism, it is equally evident, they can never recip- 
rocate the courtesy. And the charge of close 
communion is no more applicable to the 
Baptists than to us inasmuch as the ques- 
tion OF church fellowship with them is 
determined by as liberal principles as it 
is with any other protestant church, so 
far, I mean, as the present subject is concerned; 
i.e., it is determined by valid baptism." (Hib- 
bard on Bapt., P. 2, p. 174.) 

Richard Watson, and Methodism boasts of no 
greater, lays down these rules to govern the 
Lord's Supper: 

"1. The very nature of the ordinance of the 
Xiord's Supper excludes from participating in it 
not only open unbelievers, but all who reject the 
doctrine of the atonement made by the vicarious 
death of Christ for 'the remission of sins. ' Such 
persons have indeed tacitly acknowledged this, 
by reducing the rite to a mere commemoration 
of the fact of Christ's death, and of those virtues 
of humility, benevolence, and patience, which 
his sufferings called forth. If, therefore, the 
Lord's Supper be in truth much more than this; 



152 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

if it recognize the sacrificial character of Christ's 
death, and the doctrine of faith in his blood, as 
necessary to our salvation, this is 'an altar of 
which they have no right to eat ' who reject these 
doctrines; and from the Lord's table all such 
persons ought to be repelled by ministers, when- 
ever, from compliance with custom, or other 
motives, they would approach it. 

' ' 2. It is equally evident that when there is no 
evidence in persons of true repentance for sin, 
and of desire of salvation, according to the terms 
of the Gospel, they are disqualified from partak- 
ing at ' the table of the Lord. ' They drink and 
eat unworthily, and fall therefore into ' condem- 
nation. ' The whole act is indeed on their part an 
act of bold profanation or of hypocrisy; they 
profess by this act to repent, and have no sorrow 
for sin; they profess to seek deliverance from its 
guilt and power, and yet remain willingly under 
its bondage; they profess to trust in Christ's 
death for pardon, and are utterly unconcerned 
concerning either; they profess to feed upon 
Christ, and hunger and thirst after nothing but 
the world; they place before themselves the suf- 
ferings of Christ; but when they ' look upon him 
whom they have pierced,' they do not 'mourn 
because of him, ' and they grossly offend the all- 
present majesty of heaven, by thus making light 
of Christ, and grieving the Holy Spirit. 

"3. It is a part of Christian discipline in every 



THE METHODISTS. 153 

religious society to prevent such persons from 
communicating with the Church. They are ex- 
pressly excluded by apostolic authority, as well 
as by the original institution of this sacrament, 
which was confined to Christ's disciples; and 
ministers would partake of other men's sins, if 
knowingly they were to admit to the Supper of 
the Lord those who in their spirit and lives deny 
him." (Inst. TheoL, vol. 2, pp. 669, 670.) 

The New York Christian Advocate, the ablest 
Methodist paper on this continent, says : ' ' There 
is no authority. Scriptural or Methodistic, for 
making the invitation general. The man who 
will not subject himself to the discipline of the 
Christian Church, and ally himself with its mem- 
bers, has no right to ask or receive communion 
at its hands. The course pursued by some min- 
isters degrades the church and sacraments. 
Every person should be formally recognized as a 
disciple of Christ; it should not be left to his 
own judgment. Years ago a minister said: 'We 
sit in judgment upon no one. If in his heart he 
feels that he loves the Lord, he can come and 
commune with us. ' And the meanest loafer in 
town, in debt to half of the church for money 
spent upon his vices, unkind to his heart-broken 
wife, and expelled from another church, marched 
forward with a smirk upon his face to take com- 
munion. After what the minister had said, he 
could not consistently refuse him, but nearly 



154 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

every important member of the church expressed 
his disapproval in such terms that the experi- 
ment was not tried there again." 

It would, therefore, be wise for some persons to 
learn this further lesson given by the New York 
Christian Advocate: ' 'The regularBaptist churches 
in the United States may be considered to-day as 
practically a unit on three points — the non-use 
of infant baptism, the immersion of believers 
only upon a profession of faith, and the adminis- 
tration of the holy communion to such only as 
have been immersed by ministers holding these 
views. In our opinion the Baptist Church owes 
its amazing prosperity largely to its adherence 
to these views. In doctrine and government, 
and in other respects, it is the same as the Con- 
gregationalists. In numbers, the regular Bap- 
tists are more than six times as great as the 
Congregationalists. It is not bigotry to adhere 
to one's convictions, provided the spirit of Chris- 
tian love prevails." 

With the above facts before me, taken as they 
are from the Discipline and the ablest writers of 
that denomination, I am led to believe, that in 
principle and often times in practice, the Meth- 
odist Church is very stringent in its terms of 
communion. I am equally sure that the Meth- 
odists, if they should carry out their own prin- 
ciples, would be far more stringent than the 
JBaptists. It is also quite certain that the Meth- 



THE METHODISTS. 155 

■odist circuit riders, and some others, who throw 
down all barriers, and give an indiscriminate in- 
vitation for all persons, good and bad, to partake 
of the Lord's Supper, act contrary to the Disci- 
pline and teachings of their church. It is then 
a point made out that the requirements of the 
Baptists in their terms of communion, are nc 
naore rigid than are the Methodists. 



156 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE TERMS OF COMMUNION AMONG THE DISCI- 
PLES OR OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ARE 
THE DISCIPLES CLOSE COMMUNIONISTS? 

THIS denomination believes with all others 
that faith, baptism, and church member- 
ship are prerequisites to the communion. They 
go further than some and state that baptism 
is immersion and deny infant baptism. Hold- 
ing such views, how they can be other than 
' ' close communionists, " and be at all consistent, 
I do not know. I do not wish to speculate so I 
shall let their foremost men answer. 

I begin with Alexander Campbell. He says: 
' ' We do not recollect that we have ever argued 
out the merits of this free and open communion 
system. But one remark we must offer in pass- 
ing, that we must regard it as one of the weakest 
and most vulnerable causes ever plead; and that 
the ' great ' Mr, Hall, as he is called, has in hi& 
defence of the practice, made it appear worse 
than before. In attempting to make it reason- 
able, he has only proved how unreasonable and 
unscriptural it is." (Mil. Har., vol. 2, p. 393.) 

In reply to a question from Mr. Jones of Eng- 
land, Mr. Campbell says : ' ' Your third question 



THE DISCIPLES OR CHRISTIANS. 157 

Is, Do any of your churches admit "unbaptized 
persons to communion, a practice that is becom- 
ing very prevalent in this country? Not one so 
FAR AS IS KNOWN TO ME. I am at a loss to un- 
derstand on what principle — by what law, prece- 
dent or license, any congregation founded upon 
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being 
the chief corner stone, could dispense with the 
practice of the primitive church — with the com- 
mandment of the Lord and the authority of his 
apostles." (Mil. Har., vol. 6, p. 18.) 

In his debate with Mr. Rice, Mr. Campbell 
says : ' ' We have no open communion with us, 
as they in England have. The principle is not 
at all recognized among us. In England there 
are large communities of free communion Bap- 
tists, who admit Pedobaptists as freely as they 
do the baptized. We have no such a custom 
among us." (Debate with Rice, p. 810.) 

In the Christian Baptist, Mr. Campbell says: 
"But I object to making it a rule, in any case, 
to receive unimmersed persons to church ordi- 
nances: 1st. Because it is nowhere commanded. 
2nd. Because it is nowhere precedented in the 
New Testament. 3rd. Because it necessarily 
corrupts the simplicity and uniformity of the 
whole genius of the New Testament. 4th. Be- 
cause it not only .deranges the order of the king- 
dom, but makes void one of the most important 
institutions ever given to man. It necessarily 



158 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

makes immersion of non-effect. 5th. Because 
in making a canon to dispense with a divine in- 
stitution of momentous import, they who do so 
assume the very same dispensing power which 
issued in that tremendous apostasy which we 
and all Christians are laboring to destroy. If a 
Christian community puts into its magna charta, 
covenant or constitution, an assumption to dis- 
pense with an institution of the Great King, who 
can tell where this power of granting license to 
itself may terminate." (Christ. Bapt., vol. 6, 
Ans. to Query 9, p. 528.) 

Mr. Campbell was certainly no open commun- 
ionist. 

The Apostolic Times, a very widely circulated 
paper, says: "I do not believe that the unim- 
mersed can sit at the Lord's table; at least I do 
not believe that they do it. Hence, with me, a 
table set by them is not the Lord's table; and I 
would not eat at it. * * * From the preceding 
it would appear that I am a close communionist. 
This I certainly am, in the severest, true sense 
of the term." (Editorial, February 29th, 1872.) 

Another number of the Apostolic Times says: 
"Open communion will not only kill Baptist 
churches; but any other churches holding im- 
mersion as the one baptism, in which it is 
adopted. " 

In the Christian Quarterly, for January, 1875, 
Robert Graham, President of Hocker Female 



THE DISCIPLES OR CHRISTIANS. 159 

College says: ''In regard to what is called open 
or close communion the position of the Disciples 
is peculiar. Pedobaptist churches are usually 
open or free communionists. This they can be 
in harmony with their principles. All churches 
agree that baptism is a prerequisite to commun- 
ion at the table of the Lord; and as Pedobaptists 
accept sprinkling, and pouring and immersion as 
valid forms of baptism, they can receive at the 
table of the Lord any one who has been baptized, 
and is living a godly life. Baptists, however, 
do not allow anything to be baptism but the im- 
mersion of a believer; and in this the Disciples 
are in perfect agreement with them; hence nei- 
ther of the churches can consistently advocate 
open communion." 

The late Isaac Errett, for many years editor 
of the Standard, says: "Restore baptism to its 
place as the ordinance in which the believing 
penitent puts on Christ, and receives the assur- 
ance of the forgiveness of sins. Restore the 
Lord's Supper to its place as the weekly feast of 
Cliristians.^^ By Christians he means only the 
baptized. (Walks About Jerusalem, p. 147.) 

Moses E. Lard says: "In the outset of the 
reformation, our motto was: And thus saith the 
Lord for every article of our faith, a precept, or 
precedent for all w^e do. In the light of this 
cherished postulate, what defence can we plead 
for our act, when we sit down to commune with 



160 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

the unininiersed. * - * But suppose a man to 
be a true believer in Christ, to be truly penitent, 
to be sprinkled and not immersed, and sincerely 
to think this baptism, to be strictly a moral man, 
and to feel in his heart that he is a Christian — 
what then? May he not commune? I answer, yes: 
provided it can be shown that sincerely thinking 
so transmutes an act of sprinkling into an act of 
immersion or causes God to accept the thing He 
has not appointed for the thing he has." (In 
Quarterly, 1863, pp. 41, 52.) 

It seems that some Baptist minister in the East 
had presided at the communion table in a "Chris- 
tian Church, " and some of the ' ' Disciples " were 
loudly praising him for liberality. Rev. E. W. 
Herndon, Editor of the Quarterly Review, replies: 
"A Baptist is a 'brother among brethren' when 
he will violate his party obligations and partake 
of the Lord's Supper with the disciples of Jesus. 
This man knows that his religious organization 
holds that it is wrong for him to do this thing, 
yet he does it, and continues to hold his fellow- 
ship with it, and receives pay from its members 
for preaching its doctrines. Is he honest? We 
have heard that Spurgeon permits members of 
other religious organizations to commune with 
him, but not long since he denounced those he 
called Campbellites as heretics. * * * Our duty 
is to proclaim the terms of naturalization, and it 
is God's prerogative to decide who have complied 



THE DISCIPLES OR CHRISTIANS. 161 

with the terms. We have no right to proclaim 
the terms, and then say that citizenship may be 
acquired by other means. According to the 
above, a Baptist is ^j 'brother among brethren,' 
and just as much a citizen of the Kingdom of 
God as those for whom he was presiding. If he 
is a ' brother among brethren, ' then he is one of 
the family and our debates with Baptists must 
cease. If the Baptists will permit it, disciples 
of Jesus, when living in a locality where there is 
no congregation of disciples, may and should 
take membership in a Baptist organization, assist 
in supporting the pastor and their missionary 
enterprises, if this position is correct. We do 
not so read the Bible. It may be possible that 
these editors are more liberal in their fellowship 
and fraternity than God. We may be narrow, 
but we endeavor to be consistent, and we think 
that we are not narrower than the Word of God," 
(Christian Review, 1887, p. 637.) 

Prof. J. W. McGarvey, of the Bible College, 
Lexington, Ky., says: "We believe that faith, 
repentance and baptism are the Scriptural pre- 
requisites to the Lord's Supper, and that no be- 
liever is entitled to the ordinance until he has 
iDeen baptized. We believe the privilege belongs 
to all baptized believers, and to those who are" 
leading an orderly life, and to none others." 

(Apostolic Times, November 17th, 1874.) 
11 



162 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

The American Christian Review, Cincinnati^ 
Ohio, says: " It is contrary to the Word of God 
to break bread and to partake of the cup with 
persons who have never been immersed into the 
death of Christ. See Rom. 6. " 

These writers undoubtedly teach close com- 
munion. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 163 



CHAPTER XII. 

WHAT IS BAPTISM? 

FEOM the standard authorities of all of these- 
denominations, as well as from the Scrip- 
tures, I have demonstrated that conversion, bap- 
tism and church membership precede commun- 
ion. Dr. Knapp sums up the matter when he 
says: ' ' None but actual members of the Christian 
church can take part in the Lord's Supper; those 
who are not Christians are excluded from it. On 
this point there has been a universal agreement. 
For by this rite we profess our interest in the 
Christian church, and our belief in Christ." 
(Theology, p. 502.) 

From this argument there is but one point of 
divergence. What is church order? If that point 
were settled, there would be no further contro- 
versy. The point of difference is baptism in its 
act, subjects and design. We regard sprinkling 
and pouring, infant baptism, and when the rite 
is administered with the wrong design, as no 
baptism. Hence we accept the principle of Ter- 
tuUian: ''They who are not rightly baptized, are 
doubtless not baptized at all." (De Baptismo, 
cap. XV, p. 230.) So certain are we that those 
who practice such things have departed from 



164 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

church order that we believe that they have de- 
barred themselves from the table of the Lord. 
I shall go into no extended arguments on these 
subjects, but shall content myself with some 
passing reflections. 

The argument for immersion as the act of 
Christian baptism is overwhelming. Even our 
English Bible teaches immersion; although it is 
an Episcopal translation rendered under rules, 
that forbade the translation of baptize, and com- 
manded that the word should be merely trans- 
ferred. I have those rules before me. Rules 
three and four are the ones in point, so I simply 
quote them: "(3.) The old ecclesiastical words 
to be kept, namely, as the word ' church ' not to 
be translated congregation, etc. (4.) When any 
word hath divers significations, that to be kept 
that has been most commonly used by the most 
eminent Fathers, being agreeable to the pro- 
priety of the place, and the analogy of faith." 
(See Puller's Church History of Britain, vol. 3, 
p. 229.) 

That "baptize" was included among these 
ecclesiastical words is evident from the preface 
that King James' translators put to their Bible. 
I find the following : "Avoided the scrupulosity 
of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical 
ivords and betake them to others; as when they 
put washing for baptism, and congregation for 
church; as on the other side they had shunned 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 165 

the obscurity of the Papists in their azymes, 
tunike, rational, holocaust, and a number of such 
like, whereof their late translation is full." 

Yet taking King James' translation immersion 
is the evident meaning of baptism. Read such 
passages as these: "And there went out unto 
John all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusa- 
lem, and were all baptized of him in the river of 
Jordan, confessing their sins," Mark 1:5; "And 
it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came 
from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of 
John in Jordan. And straightway coming up 
out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, 
and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him,". 
Mark 1:9,10; "And John was also baptizing in 
Enon near to Salim, because there was much water 
there: and they came, and were baptized," John 
3:23; "And they went down both into the water, 
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 
And when they were come up out of the water, 
the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip," Acts 
8:38,39; "Therefore we are buried with him by 
baptism into death: that like as Christ was 
raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
Father, even we also should walk in the newness 
of life," Rom. 6:4; "One Lord, one faith, one 
baptism," Eph. 4:5. 

I have already showed that baptize was trans- 
ferred and not translated. It is a Greek word in 
English dress. Dr. Edward Beecher says of it: 



166 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

*'I remark, then, that to transfer words from 
one language to another, is not to mistranslate, 
but simply to take a word from the stores of one 
language, and by it to enrich those of another. 
The sense of such a word is to be fixed, as in the 
sense of all other words, by the association of 
ideas. For example, to dip, is of Saxon origin, 
and belongs to the native stores of our language. 
On the other hand the word immergo did not be- 
long to our language, but to the Latin. At 
length, from a form of this verb, the word im- 
merse was transferred to our language, and 
immersio was transferred to immersion. In like 
manner baptize and baptism have been trans- 
ferred from the Greek." (Baptism with Refer- 
ence to its Modes and Subjects, p. 122.) 

We are therefore justified in appealing to the 
Greek for the original meaning of the word bap- 
tize. It will there be found to have a special and 
not a general meaning. As John Pye Smith says : 
' ' The New Testament has no generic term to des- 
ignate Baptism and the Lord's Supper." (First 
Lines of Christian Theology, Art. Bapt. ) In the 
original Greek, beyond question, baptize means 
to dip. I shall quote the two most learned Greek 
Lexicons published, Liddell and Scott, and 
Thayer. Liddell and Scott define the word : ' • To 
dip in, or under water." Thayer says: "To dip 
repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge. In the 
New Testament it is used particularly of the rite 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 167 

of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the 
Baptist, afterward by Christ's command received 
hy Christians and adjusted to the nature and 
contents of their religion, viz: an immersion in 
water. " 

How immersion was changed into sprinkling is 
■equally evident. The brilliant Pressense says: 
' ' To comprehend the value of this august symbol 
(baptism), we must consider it under its primi- 
tive form. I declare at the outset, that I admit 
the right of the church to modify the form and 
xite according to times and places. The new 
covenant is not bound, as was the old, to a Le- 
vitical code which rules absolutely all the details 
of worship, all religious usages. The details are 
left to Christian liberty; and forms may be 
varied, provided the spirit of the gospel is not 
changed. Let it, then, be well understood that 
we raise no objection to the actual form of bap- 
tism in our churches. We believe that it would 
be an act of Judaism to protest against it, giving 
thereby an exaggerated importance to a question 
of this nature. The West can reproduce with 
difficulty the ceremonies of the East, and we 
understand very well that sprinkling has been 
substituted for immersion. Nevertheless, to seize 
with entire clearness the primary idea^ of the 
sacrament of regeneration, we must in some way 
make a primitive baptism assist us. The neo- 
phyte was first plunged into the water; and 



168 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

then, when he had emerged, he received the un- 
position of hands. These two acts of baptism 
represented the two grand sides of the Christian 
life — repentance and faith, death and the new 
life. The neophyte is buried under the waters 
in sign of his voluntary death to self, in which 
every serious conversion begins : he becomes one 
who is planted in the crucifixion of his Sa"^i.our. 
Then he emerges to light in sign of his inward 
renewal: he becomes one who is planted in the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus is figured in 
a manner the most expressive and solemn all 
this grand drama of regeneration. ' (For further 
information on this subject consult the author's 
work: Immersion, the Act of Christian Baptism, 
Baptist Book Concern, Louisville, Ky.) 

The Scriptures are equally opposed to infant 
baptism. The commission under which we bap- 
tize reads: "Go ye therefore and teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you: and. lo. I am with jou alway, 
even unto the end of the world. Amen.'' (Matt. 
28:19,20.) Mark's words are: "Go ye into all 
the world, and preach the gospel unto every 
creature. He that belie veth and is baptized shall 
be .saved; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." (Mark 16:15,16.) Without doubt, in 
these passages, discipleship and faith precedes 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 169 

baptism. Infant baptism must, therefore, di- 
rectly nullify the words of the Lord Jesus. 

John the Baptist declared his baptism was 
"unto repentance," Matt. 3:11; Jesus "made" 
disciples before he baptized them, John 4:1; and 
in the apostolic times ' ' they that gladly received 
the word were baptized," Acts 2:41. From these, 
and other passages too numerous to quote, it is 
evident that infant baptism has no place in the 
Scriptures. 

Infant baptism originated not in the Scrip- 
tures, but in the unholy doctrine of baptismal 
salvation. In Lecky's ' ' History of Rationalism" 
occur the following burning lines: "According 
to the unanimous belief of the early church all 
who were external to Christianity were doomed 
to eternal damnation, and therefore the new- 
born infant was subject to the condemnation un- 
less baptism had united it to the church. At a 
period which is so early that it is impossible to 
define it (we are able now to define it) infant 
baptism was introduced into the church; it was 
universally said to be for the remission of sins, 
and the whole body of the fathers without excep- 
tion or hesitation pronounced that all infants 
who died unbaptized were excluded from heaven. 
All through the Middle Ages we trace the influ- 
ence of this doctrine in the innumerable super- 
stitious rites which were devised as substitutes 
for regular baptism. Nothing, indeed, can be 



170 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

more curious, nothing can be more deeply pa- 
thetic than the record of the many ways by 
which the terror-stricken mothers attempted to 
evade the awful sentence of the church. Some- 
times the baptismal water was sprinkled upon 
the womb; sometimes the still-born child was 
baptized in hopes that the Almighty would ante- 
date the ceremony. These and many similar 
practices continued all through the Middle Ages 
in spite of every effort to extirpate them, and 
severest censures were unable to persuade the 
people that they were entirely ineffectual, for the 
doctrine of the church had wrung the mother's 
heart with an agony that was too poignant even 
for that submissive age to bear. Weak and su- 
perstitious women, who never dreamed of rebel- 
ling against the teaching of their clergy, could 
not acquiesce in the perdition of their offspring, 
and they vainly attempted to escape from the 
dilemma by multiplying superstitious practices 
or by attributing to them a more than orthodox 
efficacy. " 

It is said that t]p.is is not believed among Meth- 
odists, Presbyteri^ans and others, "at the pres- 
ent day. I answer that infant baptism is not 
practiced among Presbyterians, Congregational- 
ists and Methodists to-day as at an earlier time. 
But much of this superstition still exists; else 
why are ministers hastily sent for to baptize 
•children supposed to be dying? As churches be- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 171 

gin to abandon the doctrine that baptism is 
necessary to the infant's salvation they begin 
also to abandon infant baptism. Just in propor- 
tion as the New Testament ideas prevail, this 
rite, which is a survival of heathen superstition 
and Roman tradition, and is utterly without the 
warrant either of Scripture or reason, falls into 
disuse. The recent debates over the Westmin- 
ster Confession have brought before the minds 
of all the fact that early Calvinistic theologians 
taught that dying infants might be sent to perdi- 
tion, though as non-elect rather than as unbap- 
tized." 

Pedobaptists fully acknowledge that the Scrip- 
tures are as silent as the grave on the subject of 
infant baptism. Hear only a few scholars. 

Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, and among Southern Meth- 
odists there has not arisen a greater, says : ' ' But 
what we wish, in this connection, to emphasize 
most particularly, is the wonderful contrast be- 
tween the silence of Christ and the everlasting 
clamors of his Church. Though he uttered not 
one express word on the subject of infant bap- 
tism, yet, on this very subject, have his pro- 
fessed followers filled the world with sound and 
fury. The Apostles imitated his silence. But 
yet, in spite of all of this, have the self-styled 
' successors of the Apostles, ' and the advocates 
of their claims, made the universal Church, and 
all the ages, ring with controversies, loud and 



172 , CLOSE COMMUNION. • . 

long and deep, respecting the rite of infant bap- 
tism. Let Tis follow, then, step by step, the rise 
of the traditions of the Church, and the inven- 
tions of men, by which the beautifully simple 
ordinance of Christian baptism has been so 
frightfully disfigured, and made to obscure the 
freeness, the fulness, and the glory of the Gos- 
pel of Christ, as well as to outrage the reason 
and moral sentiments of mankind. It will be 
found, unless we are very greatly mistaken, that 
the authors of these traditions and inventions, 
have been wise above what is written, and foolish 
above what could be conceived." (Southern Re- 
view, April, 1874, p. 336.) 

Dr. Bennett, a more recent Methodist writer,, 
says : ' ' With the most of theologians the exercise 
of faith is regarded as the necessary condition 
of the efficient operation of the sacrament. ^ - * 
Thus the first converts, whose names and the 
circumstances of whose baptism are recorded in 
the Scriptures, were of adult age. That infants 
and young children were baptized during the 
apostolic age is nowhere positively affirmed in 
the New Testament. " (Archeology, pp. 390, 391.) 

Dr. Meyer, the most learned of modern com- 
mentators, says: "Therefore the baptism of even 
the children of Christian parents, of which there 
is not a trace in the New Testament, was not, as 
Origen supposed, an apostolic custom, inasmuch 
as it met Avith early and prolonged resistance; 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 173 

TDTit it is a practice that arose after the age of the 
apostles, by a gradual process in connection with 
the development of church life and of church doc- 
trine. There is no reliable testimony concerning 
it until the age of TertuUian, who opposed it 
with earnestness. It was defended, however, by 
Cyprian; but it was only in the time of Augus- 
tine that it became general." (Com. Acts 16:15.) 

Dr. Harnack, the foremost living Church His- 
torian, says: "The introduction of the practice 
of pedobaptism into the church is hidden in ob- 
scurity. If it owes its origin to the indispensa- 
bleness of the same to salvation, this is an 
argument that the superstitious view of baptism 
had become greatly strengthened." (Harnack: 
Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bk. 1, ss. 
358, 359.) 

We think our friends of other denominations 
are radically wrong on the design of baptism. 
In some way or another they make baptism 
essential to salvation. We believe that a man is 
saved through faith, without works, by the aton- 
ing mercy of the Lord Jesus. We do not believe 
that a man is saved by priestly manipulations, 
by ordinances, nor by churchly functions. So 
we stand against baptismal salvation in all of its 
forms. 

That others hold baptismal salvation is be- 
yond doubt. 

Episcopalians believe in baptismal salvation. 



174 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Nothing is more manifest than that baptismal 
salvation is taught in the Prayer Book. In the 
Public Baptism of Infants the minister prays: 
' 'Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all who 
need, the helper of all who flee to thee for suc- 
cour, the life of those who believe, and the resur- 
rection of the dead; we call upon thee for this 
infant, that he, coming to the holy baptism, may 
receive the remission of sin, by spiritual regen- 
eration. " 

In the Catechism which every one must learn 
before he is confirmed I find: 

"What is your name? 

' ' Answer : N. or M. 

''Who gave you this name?. 

"Answer: My sponsors in baptism; wherein I 
was made a member of Christ, the child of God, 
and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. 

' ' How many sacraments hath Christ ordained 
in his church? 

"Answer: Two only, as generally necessary 
to salvation; that is to say, Baptism, and the 
Supper of the Lord. " 

And in the Order of Confirmation the Bishop 
prays : ' 'Almighty and everlasting God, who hast 
vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by 
water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto 
them the forgiveness of all their sins; Strengthen 
them, we beseech thee, O Lord, with the Holy^ 
Ghost." 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 175^> 

There is no kind of doubt that this is baptismal 
salvation. And this is so understood by Episco- 
pal writers. 

Dr. Wall says: "Most of the Pedobaptists go 
no further than St. Austin does ; they hold that 
God, by his Spirit, does at the time of baptism 
seal and apply to the infant that is there dedi- 
cated to him the promises of the covenant of 
which he is capable, viz: adoption, pardon of sin, 
translation from the state of nature to that of 
grace, etc. On which account the infant is said . 
to be regenerated of (or by) the Spirit." (Hist. 
Infant Baptism, vol 1, p. 175.) 

Lord Macaulay says of the Episcopalian 
Church: "A controversialist who puts an Ar- 
minian sense on her articles and homilies will be 
pronounced by candid men to be as unreasonable 
as a controversialist who denies that the doc- 
trine of baptismal regeneration can be discovered . 
in her liturgy. " (Hist. Eng., vol. 1, p. 41.) 

Presbyterians make baptism a means of grace. 
They still call baptism and the Lord's Supper by 
the popish name of ' ' sacraments. " The doctrine 
is thus expressed in the Confession of" Faith : 
' ' Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the 
covenant of grace, immediately instituted by 
God, to represent Christ and his benefits; and to 
confirm our interests in him, as also to put a visi- 
ble difference between those that belong unto the 
church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly 



176 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

to engage them to the ser^i.ce of God hi Christ, 
accordmg to Ms word." (Article XX\TI.) 

The view of Calvin is thus stated by Dr. Sehaff : 
''He taught that believers, while they receive 
with their mouths the ^i-sible elements, receive 
also by faith the spiritual realities signified and 
sealed thereby — namely, the benefit of the aton- 
ing sacrifice on the cross and the life-giving 
virtue of Christ's glorified humanity in heaven, 
which the Holy Ghost conveys to the soul in a 
supernatural manner." Or in the words of Dr. 
Nevin: "The living energy, the Aivific virtue, as 
Calvin styles it. of Christ's fiesh. is made to flow 
over into the communicant, making him more 
and more one with Christ himself, and thus more 
and more an heir of the same immortality that is 
brought to light in his person." 

Or as Dr. Xevin puts it in another place : The 
Church ' •' makes us Christians by the sacrament 
of holy baptism, which she always held to be of 
supernatural force for this very purpose.*' 
(Christ. Nurture, p. 97.) H this is not sacramen- 
tal salvation, I do not know how to name it. 

Dr. Guthrie says: ''And prone, as we of Scot- 
land are, to boast that our fathers, with Knox at 
then' hea-d, came forth from Rome with less of 
her old superstitions about them than the most 
of other churches, to what else than some linger- 
ing remains of popery can we ascribe the ex- 
treme anxiety which some parents show to have 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 177 

baptism administered to a dying child? Does not 
this look very like a rag of the old faith? It 
smells of the sepulcher." (Gos. in Ezek., p. 213.) 

Dr. Charles Hodge is good authority. He says : 
"Baptism, however, is not only a sign and a 
seal; it is also a means of grace, because in it 
the blessings which it signifies are conveyed, 
and the promises of which it is the seal, are as- 
sured or fulfilled to those who are baptized, pro- 
vided they believe. " "It does not follow from 
this that the benefits of redemption may not be 
conferred on infants at the time of baptism. 
That is in the hands of God. What is to hinder 
the imputation to them of the righteousness of 
Christ, or their receiving the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost, so that their whole nature may be 
developed in a state of reconciliation with God? 
Doubtless this often occurs; but whether it does 
or not, their baptism stands good; it assures 
them of salvation if they do not renounce their 
baptismal covenant." (Syst. Theology, vol. 3, 
pp. 589, 590.) 

Methodists believe in baptismal salvation. 
They call baptism a sacrament and ascribe to it 
grace. Sacraments are thus mentioned in the 
Discipline : ' ' Sacraments, ordained of Christ, are 
not only badges or tokens of Christian men's 
profession, but rather they are certain signs of 
grace, and God's good will toward, us, by the 
which he does work invisibly in us, and doth not 

12 



178 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

only quicken, but also strenghten and confirm, 
our faith in him." (Discipline, p. 18.) 

In the Administration of Infant Baptism it is 
said: *' Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men 
are conceived and born in sin, and that our 
Saviour Christ saith. Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spu*it, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God: I beseech you to call upon God 
the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
of his bounteous goodness he will grant to this 
child, now to be baptized with water, that which 
by nature he cannot have : that he may be bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost, received into Christ's 
holy Church, and be made a lively member of the 
same " (Discipline, p. 258.) 

How baptism can give to an infant that ' ' which 
by nature he cannot have" and be "made a 
lively member of" the Church I do not know. 
If this is not baptismal salvation I am mistaken. 
Indeed, Dr. Bledsoe says: "Now the man knows 
absolutely nothing on the subject of our late 
article (and had, therefore, better say nothing), 
who does not know that, the history of infant 
baptism, is, in a very great measure, the history 
of baptismal regeneration itself. An edition of 
Shakespeare's Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet 
omitted, would not be a more ridiculous produc- 
tion than a history of infant baptism without the 
introduction of baptismal regeneration." (South- 
ern Review, July, 1874, p. 148.) 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 179' 

Lest I may be mistaken in my view of the Dis- 
cipline I shall give Wesley's own words. He 
says : ' ' By baptism, we, who were by ' nature the- 
children of wrath, ' are made the children of God. 
And this regeneration which our church in so 
many places ascribes to baptism is more than 
barely being admitted into the Church, though 
commonly connected therewith; being grafted, 
into the body of Christ's Church we are made 
the children of God by adoption and grace. This 
is grounded on the plain words of our Lord,. 
' Except a man be born again of water and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ' 
(John 3:5.) By water, th&n, as a means — the 
water of baptism — we are regenerated or born 
again; whence it is also called by the Apostles, 
'the washing of regeneration.' Our Church 
therefore ascribes no greater virtue to baptism 
than Christ himself has done. Nor does she 
ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the in- 
ward grace, which, added thereto, makes it a. 
sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is in- 
fused, which will not be wholly taken away, un- 
less we quench the Holy Spirit of God by loDg 
continued wickedness. " (Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 
248, 249.) 

The above language cannot be explained so* 
that it will not teach baptismal salvation. Tyer- 
man thus comments upon it: " This is strong and 
somewhat startling language, and yet not really 



180 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

stronger than Wesley used in the sermon on the 
New Birth. " "In reference to infants he imques- 
tionably held the high-chnrch doctrine of his 
father. It is no part of our proposed task either 
to justify or to condemn this opinion; our sole 
object is honestly to relate the facts." (Life of 
Wesley, vol. 2, pp. 264, 265.) 

If there be no sacramental ef&cacy in these 
ordinances, why will a Methodist minister hasten 
at midnight to baptize a dying infant, or give 
the communion to a dying man? Such a thing 
has doubtless been done. 

Wesley makes baptismal salvation his primary 
reason for infant baptism, and it is the only 
ground upon which that rite can be defended. 
He says : "If infants are guilty of original sin, 
then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, 
in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, un- 
less this be washed away by baptism. It has' 
been already proved, that this original stain 
^cleaves to every child of man; and that hereby 
they are children of wrath, and liable to eternal 
damnation. It is true, the Second Adam has 
found a remedy for the disease which came upon 
all by the offense of the first. But the benefit of 
this is to be received through the means which 
he hath appointed; through baptism in particu- 
lar, which is the ordinary means which he hath 
appointed for that purpose; and to which God 
hath tied us, though he may not have tied him- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 181 

self. Indeed, where it cannot be had, the case 
is different; but extraordinary cases do not make 
void a standing rule. This therefore is our j5.rst 
ground. Infants need to be washed from origi- 
nal sin; therefore they are proper subjects of 
baptism." (Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 251, 252.) 

The Disciples, or Christian Church, hold the 
doctrine of baptismal salvation. They make 
faith, repentance and baptism as the necessary 
conditions of salvation. This theory debases re- 
pentance and faith to mere carnal ordinances; 
and exalts baptism to an extraordinary degree. 
That I am not mistaken appears from the fol- 
lowing authors: 

Alexander Campbell says : ' 'If blood can whiten 
or cleanse garments, certainly water can wash 
away sins. There is, then, a transferring of the 
efficacy of blood to water; and a transferring of 
the efficacy of water to blood. This is a plain 
solution of the whole matter. God has trans- 
ferred in some way, the whitening efficacy, or 
cleansing power, of water to blood; and the ab- 
solving or pardoning power of blood to water. 
This is done upon the same principle as that of 
accounting faith for righteousness. What a gra- 
cious institution. God has opened a fountain for 
sin, for moral pollution. He has given it an ex- 
tension far and wide as sin has spread — far and 
wide as water flows. Wherever water, faith, and 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are, 



182 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

there will be found the ef&cacy of the blood of 
Jesus. Yes; as God first gave the efficacy of water 
to blood, he has now given the efficacy of blood 
to water. This, as was said, is figurative, but it 
is not a figure that misleads, for the meaning is 
given without a figure; viz: immersion for the 
remission of sins. And to him that made the 
washing of clay from the eyes, the washing away 
of blindness, it is competent to make the immer- 
sion of the body in water efficacious to the wash- 
ing away of sin from the conscience." (Millenial 
Harbinger, Extra, p. 41, 1830, vol. 1.) 

Again: "I am bold, therefore, to affirm, that 
every one who, in the belief of what the Apostle 
spoke, was immersed, did, in the very instance 
in which he was put under the water receive the 
forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy 
Spirit. If so, then who will not concur with me 
in saying that Christian immersion is the gospel 
in water." (Christian Baptist, p. 417.) 

Once more: "If being born of water means 
immersion, as clearly proved by all witnesses; 
then, remission of sins cannot, in this life, be 
constitutionally enjoyed previous to immersion. 
If there be any proposition regarding any item 
of the Christian institution, which admits of 
clearer proof, or fuller illustration than this one, 
I have yet to learn where it may be found." 
(Christian System, p. 217.) 

Scores of other passages can be given from 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 183 

the writings of Mr. Campbell quite as strong as 
these. 

Isaac Errett, late editor of the Christian Stand- 
ard, says: "The gospel, while proclaiming jus- 
tification by faith to the sinner, has linked it 
with the ordinance of baptism, ere the promise 
* shall be saved' can be lawfully approached." 
(Walks About Jerusalem, p. 79.) 

O. A. Burgess says: "Is there found anywhere 
in the New Testament any other institution what- 
ever of God's appointment that sets forth the 
pardon and acceptance of the sinner under the 
figure of a birth? * * * There can no more be 
such a thing as a birth into the kingdom of 
Christ without water baptism than a child can 
be said to be born before it has been really born 
of the mother. It is monstrous to suppose that 
a s-ingle parent is requisite in the new birth and 
there can be no such thing as the sinner becom- 
ing a new creature in Christ Jesus until he comes 
forth out of the womb of the waters, and having 
been made dead to sin, is made alive to God." 
(Thompson-Burgess Debate, pp. 203, 204.) 

Moses E. Lard says: "When we cross the line 
out of the world into the kingdom we cease to be 
a Jew, cease to be a Gentile; and when we cease 
to be these we cease to be the children of the 
wicked one, and become the children of God. 
But we never cease to be Jew and Gentile till we 
enter Christ and we never enter him till baptized 



184 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

into him. Then, therefore, do we cease to be 
the children of Satan and become the children of 
God." (What Baptism is For, No. 8, pp. 5, 6.) 

Robert T. Mathews, Pastor at Lexington, Ky. , 
says: "It is the representation of salvation in 
reality — the representation of a real cleansing 
from sin, the representation of a real death to 
sin, and of a real resurrection to a new life — this 
spiritual realness alone giving sense and pro- 
priety to baptism in its element and action. There 
is a real presence and power of God in baptism. 
'Having cleansed it by the washing of water 
with the word, ' says Paul again, making baptism 
a picture of purification, and so representing it 
because something more than water is there — ■ 
the very word of God in all of its spirit and life, 
being there. * * * Baptism and salvation cou- 
pled in the world-wide commission, baptism and 
forgiveness heard together in Apostolic preach- 
ing, and penitent believers universally, readily, 
gladly baptized — -what was their baptism but a 
real confirmation of a real salvation in a real ex- 
perience of their lives? " (Evangelistic Sermons, 
pp. 123, 124.) 

E. W. Herndon says : ' ' Then, a baptism for any 
other purpose except the remission of sins, is 
not Christian baptism; then the elements of 
Christian baptism are, immersion in water of a 
believer for the remission of sins." (Christian 
Review, 1888, p. 447.) 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 185 

Growing out of these views of baptism we dif- 
fer with the whole pedobaptist world on the sub- 
ject of a converted church membership. We be- 
lieve that God's Word teaches that a man should 
be a professed Christian before he unites with 
the church; others believe that the unconverted 
should join the church as a means of grace. This 
can be proved from many sources. 

Presbyterians hold to an unconverted mem- 
bership. This is plainly taught by the Presby- 
terian standards. I read in the Confession of 
Faith, Article XXV, that the visible church ' 'con- 
sists of all those throughout the world, that pro- 
fess the true religion, together loitJi their children.^'* 
Again Article XXVIII: "Not only those who do 
actually profess faith and obedience unto Christ, 
hut also the infants of one or both believing par- 
ents are to be baptized." In the Longer Cate- 
chism, Question 62: "What is the visible church? 
The visible church is a society made up of all 
such as in all ages and places of the world do 
profess the true religion, and of their children. " 
And in the Form of Government, Chapter 2: "A 
particular church consists of a number of pro- 
fessing Christians, loith their offspring , voluntarily 
associated together, for divine worship, and 
godly living, agreeably to the Holy Scriptures; 
and submitting to a certain form of government. " 

The Confession of Faith is confirmed by the 
highest Presbyterian authorities. 



186 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Dr. Charles Hodge says: " The visible Church 
does not consist exclusively of the regenerate. 
* * ^ Our Lord expressly forbids the attempt 
being made. He compares his external king- 
dom, or visible Church, to a field in which tares 
and wheat grow together. He charges his dis- 
ciples not to undertake to separate them, be- 
cause they could not, in all cases, distinguish 
the one from the other. But both may be allowed 
to grow together unto the harvest. " (Systematic 
Theology, vol. 3, p. 548.) 

Dr. A. A. Hodge says : ' ' Children born within 
the pale of the visible Church are dedicated to 
God in baptism, when they come to years of dis- 
cretion, if they be free from scandal, appear 
sober, and steady, and to have sufficient knowl- 
edge to discern the Lord's body, they ought to 
be informed in their duty and privilege to come 
to the Lord's Supper." (Page 644.) Again, Dr. 
Hodge states: "The Baptist churches, denying 
altogether the right of infant church member- 
ship, receive all applicants for the communion 
as from the world, and therefore demand 2^ositive 
evidences of the new birth of all. All the Psedo- 
baptist churches, maintaining that all children 
baptized in infancy are already members of the 
church, distinguish between the admission of 
the children of the church to the communion and 
the admission de novo to the church of the un- 
baptized alien from the world." (Outlines of 
Theology, p. 645.) 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 187 

The Methodists receive unconverted people 
into their church. 

Samuel P. Jones, a distinguished Evangelist 
of that Church, says : ' ' Down at Huntsville, Ala. , 
one of the leading citizens took me out to one 
side and said: 'I want to be a Christian, I want 
to love God and do right, but I can't believe in 
the divinity of Christ to save my life.' 'Shut 
your mouth, ' I said, ' don't come to me with talk 
like that. Do just like Christ told you to do 
and if you don't make the landing I will swim 
out to you and drown with you. You come to 
the meeting to-night and be the first one up 
there when I call for sinners to come forward. ' 
'If I join the church, Mr. Jones, I can't believe.' 
' Shut your mouth, I am prescribing for you, and 
if you will take my remedy, I will warrant the 
cure.' He walked up and joined the church that 
night. I said: 'Well, you have joined the church; 
you must take up family prayer, and if I call on 
you to pray in church you must get down and do 
your level best. I will get you out if you will 
keep your mouth shut.' I led him out sure 
enough. That night he took up family prayer 
and started right. I went back to Huntsville 
afterward, and asked : ' How is Bro. Ford getting 
on? ' ' He is the best we have. ' ' How is he on the 
divinity?' 'O, he has quit all of that long ago.' 
If you will give God your heart he will take care 
of your head. I don't know whether I am ortho- 



188 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

dox or not, but you can attend to the orthodoxy^ 
when I am gone." 

The above extract does not read like a chapter 
from the Acts of the Apostles. 

Dr. T. O. Summers says: "We do not mean to 
say that no one is eligible to baptism who has 
not an assurance of the pardon of his sin and the 
regeneration of his nature, through faith in 
Christ and by the power of the Holy Ghost. Far 
from it. Of course, those who enjoy the witness 
of adoption are proper candidates for the ordi- 
nance; but so also are all of those who do not 
enjoy it, yet are desirous of obtaining it and are 
seeking its possession. Indeed, baptism is ad- 
mirably suited to their case. It symbolizes the 
grace which they seek, and thus assists them in 
their efforts to acquire it: the ordinance thus 
proves a means whereby the penitent subject re 
ceives the inward and invisible grace which it is 
designed to represent." (Summers on Baptism, 
pp. 21, 22.) 

Holding as we do these widely diverging views 
from others, views which in their very nature 
are revolutionary and destructive of the founda- 
tion principles of pedobaptism, it would be im- 
possible for us to approach the Lord's Supper 
Avith them. We hold that baptism is an absolute 
qualification to the Lord's Supper, and that 
sprinkling and j)ouring. infant baptism and an un- 
converted membership invalidate the ordinance. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 189 

We cannot, therefore, approach the Table with 
such persons, because thereby we would be par- 
takers of their errors and disobedience. This is 
not abuse, but the inevitable conclusion of irre- 
sistible logic. We are in no wise responsible for 
this state of things. We put no barriers in the 
way of a full and free approach to the Lord's 
Table. We only insist upon the divine order of 
the Scriptures, and a perfect obedience to the 
commands of Christ. Our Pedobaptist brethren 
are responsible for the divisions about the Lord's 
Supper; for if they will abandon these unscrip- 
tural acts and come back to the simplicity of the 
Gospel we will at once have, ''One Lord, one 
faith, and one baptism. " 



190 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

ARE BAPTISTS LACKING IN CHARITY? 

THE trouble in the whole connnunion ques- 
tion lies not in what the Scriptures say 
about it, but in the anti- scriptural things inter- 
jected into the observance of the Lord's Supper. 
The things which separate the Baptists from 
others are not the scriptural terms of faith, bap- 
tism, church membership and the Lord's Sup- 
per; because on these things for the most part 
we are all agreed, but others, insist in either 
breaking down these barriers to the table, or 
adding other conditions upon which the Scrip- 
tures are silent. It is not bigotry, nor because 
the Baptists regard all others as heathen, that 
they keep a close table. 

The real difference between Baptists and 
others is that we hold that the Lord's Supper is 
a symbolic act; while others hold that the Sup- 
per is a means of grace. We hold that it is a^ 
church act; others make it a test of Christian 
fellowship which we never do. This distinction 
is important, and should constantly be borne in 
mind. 

The charge has been so persistently made that 
the Baptists by their practice unchristianize all 



ARE BAPTISTS LACKING IN CHARITY? 191 

» 

others that I shall let some of our representative 
men speak. 

Rev. J.M.Pendleton, D.D., and he has a right to 
speak for Baptist people, says : ' ' Baptists do not 
deny that there are pious men and women in 
Pedobaptist churches, so called, but they do deny 
that these churches are formed according to the 
New Testament model. They are without bap- 
tism, and, to use the words of a very distin- 
guished Pedobaptist, Dr. E. D. Griffin, 'where 
there is no baptism, there are no visible 
churches.'" (Baptist Principles, p. 172.) 

Dr. John A. Broadus, President of the South- 
ern Baptist Theological Seminary, says: "The 
blessing thus received is not supposed to be 
essentially different in kind from other spiritual 
blessings, nor to be associated with mere divine 
appointment with this particular means of grace. 
Hence no spiritual loss is necessarily inflicted by 
failing to invite to this ceremony persons who 
have made a credible oral profession of faith, but 
have not yet submitted to the prerequisite cere- 
mony." (Commentary Matt., p. 530.) 

Dr. A. Hovey, President of Newton Theolog- 
ical Seminary, says: "Most of the difficulty, if 
not indeed all of it, which is felt in many minds 
in relation to our practice as Baptists on the sub- 
ject of communion at the Lord's table, has arisen 
from the habit so common among people of con- 
founding Christian communion with Church com- 



192 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 



munion. But they are separate and distinct acts, 
and ought not to be thus confounded. Let this 
distinction be fairly understood and properly 
observed, and we shall hear much less about the 
' exclusiveness, ' or ' illiberality, ' or ' bigotry, ' of 
the Baptists in their spiritual observance of this 
significant and impressive ordinance of the Gos- 
pel. This ordinance is not a test of Christian 
fellowship, and cannot be so used without per- 
verting its spiritual design." 

Prof. T. F. Curtis, an able writer on Communion, 
says : ' ' True communion is a spiritual — and not a 
visible thing. It may, in part, be symbolized, as in 
united prayer, or the Lord's Supper; but no Chris- 
tian ever yet, on the most extensive sacramental 
occasion, partook of the same elements with one 
thousandth part of those with whom he would 
acknowledge true Christian communion, for this 
he has, with all saints in heaven, as well as on 
earth. Nor will the two ever be co -extensive, 
until he shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and 
Jacob, to eat bread in the kingdom of God, at the 
marriage supper of the Lamb." (Curtis on 
Communion, p. 35.) 

Dr. W. W. Gardner in his able work on Church 
Communion distinguishes between Christian and 
church communion. He says : ' ' Christian com- 
munion is based upon Christian fellowship. 
Christian communion extends to all Christians, 
as such, irrespective of positive ordinances and 



ARE BAPTISTS LACKING IN CHARITY? 193 

visible church relations, and embraces all those 
scriptural acts and exercises by and in which 
mutual Christian fellowship is expressed and 
enjoyed. Such communion is fully enjoyed in 
heaven. 

"Church communion is based upon church 
fellowship, growing out of mutual church rela- 
tions. Church communion is necessarily limited 
to the members of the same particular church, 
for such only sustain mutual church relations. 
It embraces all of those church acts and privi- 
leges by which church fellowship is expressed 
and enjoyed, and in which none but members of 
the same church have a right to participate." 
{Church Communion, pp. 22, 23.) 

Dr. P. H. Mell, late Chancellor of the Univer- 
sity of Georgia, says: "There can be no scrip- 
tural communion excepting as performed by a 
local gospel church; there can be no local gospel 
church excepting as composed of individual 
members; there can be no individual members 
excepting as they are received on a vote of a 
local church; none are eligible to be voted for as 
church members excepting such as have been 
baptized on a profession of their faith in Christ; 
nothing is scriptural baptism but immersion 
upon a profession of faith in Christ; therefore, 
there can be no scriptural communion which has 
not been preceded by that ordinance, scriptural 
immersion." (Ford's Repos., 1878, p. 251.) 

13 



194 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Dr. Armitage says: "If fellowship amongst 
Christians is purchased by sitting with each 
other at the same table, their love is bought at a 
very light cost. Oneness with Christ himself, 
the brotherhood of regeneration by the Holy 
Spirit, mutual burden-bearing and mutual watch- 
care, formed the visible bond of fellowship in 
the Apostolic Churches. This sort of unity cost. 
them something, it was not a vaporing senti- 
ment, it was worth all that it cost. There is not 
a case in ecclesiastical history where the Supper 
has held any single congregation together for a 
day. Churches of all names who celebrate it 
constantly, live in open contention year by year. 
The love of Judas for John was cramped into a 
close corner when they sat at the same table, and 
ate the sop from the same dish. If Christians 
are not one on a much higher plane than that 
of eating and drinking the Supper with each 
other, their true unity is a hopeless business. 
In fact, as if to prove the perfect emptiness of 
this pretension, in some Protestant commun- 
ions, the Supper itself has been* the subject of 
hot dispute, the chief bone of contention from 
century to century. The greatest bitterness has 
been indulged, and anathemas have been bandied 
about, pro and con, with a freedom which has 
marked no other form of discussion, and hy- 
men, who regularly meet at the same table.'*' 
(History Baptists, pp. 146, 147.) 



ARE BAPTISTS LACKING IN CHARITY? 195 

These are all representative Baptists. They 
■unanimously declare that Baptists pass no sen- 
tence of disfranchisement upon any. They be- 
lieve that the observance of the Lord's Supper 
is a church ordinance; and they do not extend it 
beyond their own discipline. The attitude of 
Baptists on this subject is not one of war but of 
strict neutrality. Dr. W. C. Wilkinson aptly puts 
it: '' Restricted communion, as practiced by Bap- 
tists, is not positive, it is strictly negative. It^ 
does not turn away; it simply does not invite. 
Not inviting, it naturally does not accept invita- 
tions. This is really the whole. Restricted com- 
munion does nothing more than just maintain 
this attitude of not doing. What could be less 
offensive?" (Baptist Principles, p. 199.) 

With us it is solely a matter of principle, and 
not of impatience toward others. Dr. Charles 
Hodge, and I am glad to agree with this eminent 
Presbyterian, puts this in a strong way. He says : 
' 'As Christ is the only head of the Church it fol- 
lows that its allegiance is to him, and that when- 
ever those out of the Church undertake to regu- 
late its affairs, or to curtail its liberties, its mem- 
bers are bound to obey him rather than men. 
They are bound by all legitimate means to resist 
such usurpations, and to stand fast in the liberty 
where with Christ has made them free. They 
are under equal obligation to resist all undue 
assumption of authority by those within the 



196 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Church, whether, it be the brotherhood or by 
individual officers, or by Church councils or 
courts. The allegiance of the people terminates 
on Christ. They are bound to obey others only 
so far as obedience to them is obedience to Him. 
In the early ages some endeavored to impose on 
Christians the yoke of the Jewish law. This, of 
course, they were bound to resist. In the fol- 
lowing centuries, and by degrees, the intolerable 
rituals, ceremonies, fasts, festivals, and priestly, 
prelatical, and papal assumptions, which oppress 
so large a part of the Christian world, have been 
imposed on the people in derogation to the au- 
thority of Christ as the sole head of the Church. 
Councils, provincial and ecumenical, have not 
only prescribed creeds, contrary to the Scrip- 
tures, but also have made laws to bind the con- 
science, and ordained observances which Christ 
never enjoined. As Christ is the head of his 
earthl}^ kingdom, so is he its only lawgiver. He 
prescribes the terms of admission into his king- 
dom. These cannot be rightfully altered by any 
liuman authority. Men can neither add to them, 
nor detract from them. " (Systematic Theology, 
vol. 2, pp. 606, 607.) 

To all of which we say amen and amen. 



POSITIVE AND MORAL LAW. 197 



CHAPTER XIV. 

POSITIVE AND MORAL LAW. 

T has always occurred to me that the advocates 
of open communion have confounded two 
things that are widely different — positive and 
moral law. A moral law is right in the nature 
of things, and is based upon the immutable and 
universal principles of truth and justice. On the 
other hand positive law depends for its authority 
upon the will of the divine Lawgiver. A moral 
duty is commanded because it is right, a positive 
duty is right because it is commanded. A moral 
law can be obeyed in any way that comports 
with its spirit; a positive law must be obeyed to 
its very letter. Of this kind is the observance 
of the Lord's Supper. We have no choice save 
to obey the laws of its observance as given in 
the New Testament. 

The Bible puts great emphasis upon the obe- 
dience of positive law, and signal have been the 
punishments inflicted upon those who have vio- 
lated positive laws. Adam and Eve were driven 
from the garden as the result of the disobedience 
of a positive law. Moses was not permitted to 
see the promised land, and Saul was rejected as 
King of Israel, all because of disobedience of 



198 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

positive law. These examples show us, that 
God does not treat lightly a disobedience of any 
of his commands. It is not a question of ' • essen- 
tials or non-essentials," but how can I obey the 
Lord. 

The Nashville Christian Advocate, in a recent 
editorial laid down the right principle: ''But 
v^hen the proposition is made to change the 
nature of the Lord's Supper * * * we are against 
that, now and forever. The canon of accommo- 
dating Scripture to our own ideas and changing 
the constitutional principles in the interest of 
these views, is rationalism of the most irrational 
and ruinous kind. When our pet views lead us 
to criticise the acts of Christ, or change the prin- 
ciples and institutions that he established, it is 
time for us to halt and retrace our steps and^ re- 
model our views. " 

Bishop Hoadly, of the Episcopal Church, is 
much to the point. He sa,ys : ' ' The partaking of 
the Lord's Supper is not a duty of itself, or a 
duty apparent to us from the nature of things, 
but a duty made such to Christians by the posi- 
tive institution of Jesus Christ. All positive 
duties, or duties made such by institution alone, 
depend entirely on the will and declaration of 
the person who institutes or ordains them with 
respect to the real design and end of them, and 
consequently to the due manner of performing 
them. For there being no other foundation for 



POSITIVE AND MORAL, LAW. 199 

iihem with, regard to us, but the will of the insti- 
tutor, this will must, of necessity, be our sole 
direction, both as to our understanding their true 
intent, and practicing them accordingly; because 
we can have no other direction in this sort of 
duties, unless we will have recourse to mere in- 
vention, which makes them our own institutions, 
and not the institutions of those who first ap- 
pointed them. It is plain, therefore, that the 
nature, the design, and the due manner of the 
Lord's Supper, must, of necessity, depend on 
what Jesus Christ, who instituted it, has said 
about it." (Works, vol. 3, p. 845.) 

Just here comes in the mistake, and misappre- 
liension, that exists in so many minds. The 
''communion of saints" is confounded with the 
Lord's Supper. Communion of saints is morally 
right; it is one of the things that will happen of 
its own accord. I heartily believe in ' ' the com- 
munion of saints." But there is a vast difference 
between Church communion and Christian com- 
munion. They are separate and distinct acts 
and should never be confounded. With the Bap- 
tists Church communion is no test of Christian 
fellowship. Here is where we are often misun- 
derstood. When we gather around the Lord's 
table it is not to show our love for one another, 
or our opinion of others; but to show forth the 
Lord's death till he come a2:ain. It is not a test 



200 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

of Christian fellowship at all. Before one calls 
us illiberal, it would be well for him to under- 
stand our position. 

There is not an example in the Scriptures 
where the Lord's Supper is made a test of Chris- 
tian charity. It is always declared to have 
another design. In Matt. 26:28,30, it "is the 
Mood of the New Testament, which is shed for 
many for the remission of sins." His atoning 
blood is the great theme of the Scriptures. In 
1 Cor. 11:24-29, is the additional idea that we do 
this "in remembrance" of what Christ has done 
for us. The eloquent Melvill caught the spirit 
of this when he said: "Inasmuch as the bread 
and the wine represent the body and blood of the 
Saviour, the administration of this ordinance is- 
so commemorative of Christ's having been of- 
fered as a sacrifice, that we seem to have before 
us the awful and mysterious transaction, as 
though again were the cross reared, and the 
words, ' It is finished, ' pronounced in our hear- 
ing." (Thoughts, p. 240.) Of course we cannot 
call to recollection brethren who are present 
with us. We are not to fasten our minds upon 
our brethren; but upon the all sufficiency of the 
grace of God and his wonderful work for us. 

The very moment we turn our eyes from these 
lofty themes, and commence to think about our- 
selves and others, we degrade this memorial 



POSITIVE AND MORAL LAW. 201 

feast. It is not of flesh and blood that we are to 
think, but of the crucified and exalted Christ. 
It is not a communion, or feast, with our breth- 
ren, but with Christ. 

This forever does away with much sentimen- 
tality about ''communion with mother," and my 
great "liberality," and "how bigoted somebody 
else is." 



202 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER XV. 

OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS GOSPEL DIS- 
CIPLINE. 

ONE of the most fatal objections to open 
communion is that it breaks down all bar- 
riers to the Lord's table, puts it beyond church 
discipline, and allows the profane and profligate 
to participate. The Scriptures undoubtedly 
place the observance of the Supper under the 
control of the church, and does not extend it be- 
yond the discipline of the church. The church 
cannot divest itself of responsibility as to the 
character of its communicants. This is the exact 
idea of the Greek Koinonia, communion. 

Here is the authority of the Greek Lexicons. 

Thayer says: "Fellowship, association, com- 
munity, joint participation, intercourse." And 
the verb is defined, ' ' to make one's self a sharer 
or partner." 

Liddell and Scott says: "Association, parther- 
ship, society." 

The commentators are also agreed. 

Meyer says: "This is the theocratic bond of 
participation, whereby the man stands bound to 
the sacrificial altar, who eats of the sacrifice be- 
longing to it as such. The Israelite who refused 



OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS. 203 

to eat of the flesh of the sacrifice as such, would 
thereby practically declare that he had nothing 
• to do with the altar, but stood aloof from the 
sphere of theocratic connection with it. The 
man on the other hand, who ate a portion of the 
flesh offered upon the altar, gave proof of the 
religious relation in which he stood to the altar 
itself." (Com. 1 Cor. 10:18.) 

The reasoning is conclusive. By participating 
at the Lord's table together we declare ourselves 
to be partners, and members of the same organi- 
zation, or church, and mutually responsible for 
the right administration of the supper. Only 
members of the one body, the church, can join 
in this participation, since no others can be 
partners in this matter. Paul's reasoning is to 
the point. He says : ' ' The cup of blessing which 
we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of 
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a 
communion of the body of Christ? Seeing that 
we who are many, are one bread and one body: 
for we all partake of the one bread. Behold 
Israel after the flesh: have not they which eat 
the sacrifices communion with the altar? What 
say I then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is 
anything, or that an idol is anything? But I say, 
that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they 
sacrifice to devils, and not to God; and I would 
not that ye should have communion with devils. 
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the 



204 CLOSE COMMrXIOX. 

cup of devils: ye cannot partake of the table of 
the Lord, and of the tables of devils." (1 Cor. 
10:16-21. Revised Version.) TVe are therefore 
persuaded that the joint participation in the sup- 
per means a joint membership in the church. 

Dr. Hibbard says: *• Those who meet at the 
Lord's table signify thereby that they have 
mutual fellowship in the faith, experience and 
practice of the gospel. Hence. Paul calls it the 
•communion of the bodv and blood of Christ;' 
'for we, being many, are one bread and one body; 
for we are all partakers of that one bread. ' " Or 
says Dr. A. Qarke: *' The original would be bet- 
ter translated thus: 'Because there is one bread, 
or loaf, we, who are many, are one body. ' (1 Cor. 
10:16.17.) This feasting together declares a com- 
munity of interest in the merits of the same 
Jesus whose sacrificial death is exhibited iu the 
distributed elements, and proves the disciples of 
Christ to be *' oxe body.' How, then, can an or- 
dinance which manifestly declares its recipients, 
though ' many ' individuals, to be ' one body, * be 
administered to those who are not of that 
body?" (On Baptism. P. 2. p. 185.) 

TJie Advance, of Chicago, an able Congrega- 
tional journal, reasons thus, in an editorial. No- 
vember l<Jth, 1868: "It is a mistake, contrary to 
the name, the idea, and the ajx^stolic description 
of this sacrament, to make it only the sign of a 
faith in Christ, bv the iddividual. The word 



OPEX COMMUXIOX DESTROYS. 205 

Jcoinonia, com 7ti •union, contradicts it. meaning the 
common participation of many in sign, of their 
being one, as Paul explains it. First Corinthians 
x:16.17. • The cnp of blessing Yrhich we bless, is 
it not the communion of the blood of Christ? 
The bread which we break, is it not the com- 
munion of the body of Chiist? For we being 
manv are one bread and one body: for we are all 
partakers of that one bread. ' A church cannot, 
then, divest itself of all responsibility for fellow 
communicants. If anv ordinance is in meaning 
and act purely an individual acknowledgment of 
Christ, in which the recipient alone is concerned, 
and others are not responsible, baptism may be 
so considered. The Supper, on the contrary, is 
the appointed method of expressing our com- 
munion with each other; and this is the very 
ground of our complaint against the Baptists, 
that by their close communion they withhold 
the appointed sign of fellowship from visible, 
professed Chiistians, who are organized as such 
into churches.'and whose spiritual character they 
neither deny nor doubt. It is the Lord's table, 
and we express a general confidence in the Chris- 
tian character of those who Eire invited to par- 
take with us, and are bound, therefore, reason- 
ably to protect it from improper approach by 
requiring that those who come to it should be 
members of Christian churches." 

The Independe?it in an editorial, Au£:ust ISth, 



206 ' CLOSE COMMUNION. 

1892, says: "A leading Baptist paper in the 
United States says : ' There is for the open com- 
munion Baptist nothing to justify a separation 
from his pedo-Baptist brethren.' 

' ' This is perfectly correct. There is no reason 
whatever why open communion Baptists, like 
the free Baptists, for example, should form a 
separate denomination from Christians who hold 
the same faith and the same form of govern- 
ment, but who usually baptize by a different 
method. If they can fellowship as churches in 
separate denominations, they can fellowship as 
churches in the same denomination. If Free 
Baptists and Congregationalists, for example, 
are not united in one denomination, it is not be- 
cause they are kept apart by anything essential 
or anything which they think to be important, 
but simply because they have not taken the 
trouble to come together. That they have not 
taken the trouble is not to their credit. 

' ' Close communion is the only logical position 
which can be taken by those who believe that 
all other denominations except themselves dis- 
obey a plain, binding command of God. That is 
the position which close communion Baptists 
take. They say that the command is to believe 
and be baptized, and that the two commands are 
equally binding even if not of equal saving 
value." 

All that I am insisting upon is that the Lord's. 



OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS. 207 

Supper is a church ordinance, and that no one 
can participate in it who is not subject to the 
discipline of the church. Dr. Hibbard, the great 
Methodist, frankly says: "On the contrary, the 
eucharist, from its very nature, is a church ordi- 
nance and as such can be properly participated 
in only by church members. As a church ordi- 
nance, it can never be carried out of the church. 
This is so evident that no words can make it 
more plain, or add to its force." (Hibbard on 
Baptism, P. 2, p. 185.) 

The Scriptures are plain. All who will not 
obey the commands of Christ are to be treated as 
disorderly, and no disorderly person is to be ad- 
mitted to the Lord's Supper. "Now we com- 
mand you, brethren, in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, that' ye withdraw yourselves from 
every brother that walketh disorderly, and not 
after the tradition received of us. And if any 
man obey not our word by this epistle, note 
that man, and have no company with him, that 
he may be ashamed." (2 Thes. 3:6,14.) And that 
this is to apply to the Lord's Supper we are 
plainly told : ' ' But now I have written unto you 
not to keep company, if any man that is called a 
brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idol- 
ater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; 
with such a one no not to eat." (1 Cor. 5:11.) 

If this is not true, church discipline is worse 
than useless. An open communion church could 



208 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

turn out a member for outrageous wickedness, to- 
morrow he goes and joins some other denomina- 
tion, and the next Sunday, when the open com- 
munion table is spread, he comes up smiling, and 
communes with the very church that excluded 
him. The result of the whole matter is that the 
church is disgraced; its discipline dishonored and 
rendered nugatory, and all on account of the un- 
reasonable practice that is called open com- 
munion. 

I quote again from the Advance: "As to the 
effect of a table open to all, it appears to us to 
be subversive of church discipline, and to tend 
in the end to decrease rather than to increase 
the number of attendants. 

' ' Of what use is it to excommunicate a repro- 
bate, by vote of a church, during the week, and 
then to communicate with him if he chooses to 
come, at one of these open tables, on the next 
Lord's day! And then the Unitarians and Uni- 
versalists, practicing on that plan, have found 
that few wanted what everybody could have. 
When the boundary line of church and world is 
thus removed, there is no rush into the church, 
because church ceases to mean anything. In no 
denomination is the Lord's table so crowded as 
where it is made strictly a church ordinance, and 
no one is invited unless he has openly and per- 
manently professed Christ by uniting with the 
church." 



OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS. 20-9 

If the Supper is not under the control of the 
church, who is responsible for its right adminis- 
tration? Will you say there are, and ought to be, 
no limits thrown around the Lord's table? Will 
you say that devils and wicked men ought to sit 
down to it, and make it a feast of drunken mad- . 
ness instead of Christian joy? If there are quali- 
fications, who is to judge of those qualifications? 
Manifestly the church of God. By all of these 
admissions it would necessary follow that in pre- 
scribing terms to the Lord's table we have not 
gone beyond our right. But rather, we have 
taken the terms prescribed in the word of God, 
and thrown them around the table as a safe- 
guard. We propose to be liberal, and no more 
liberal, than was Christ our Lord. You talk 
much about a common table, why not have a 
common baptism? If you will obey the commands 
of the Bible, there will be no strife on this subject. 

Hence George T. Ladd says: "But this right 
of discipline cannot be duly exercised, except 
upon the principle of a regenerate membership. 
The wrong in communing in the most holy sac- 
raments acts with these, who, neither in faith 
nor conduct, claimed the spiritual communion 
Tipon which the sacraments take place, could be 
amended only by an application of the same prin- 
ciple. ' The people are the church, ' said Robin- 
son, * and to make a reformed church there must 
first be a reformed people.' It is only by the 

14 



210 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

grace of God in their hearts, he goes on to main- 
tain, that the people, * being first fitted for and 
made capable of the sacraments and other ordi- 
nances, might afterward have communicated in 
the pure use of them.' Christ believed on and 
confession is, in judgment of them all, and ac- 
cording to the words of Davenport, 'the rock 
whereon a particular visible church is built. ' It 
was, therefore, as a fundamental doctrine, almost 
without a single exception even so much as 
questioned by our early authorities, that the 
Cambridge Platform laid down its definitions." 
(Principles of Church Polity, p. 51.) 

And there is no way to purify the church ex- 
cept by discipline. 

It is not a matter of liberality, but of church 
duty, to reject from the table of the Lord those 
who have never obeyed the requirements of 
God's word. Dr. Hibbard, and I am delighted 
to agree so readily with this great Methodist, 
makes another point so just that I am constrained 
to quote him again. "If it be a responsible act 
to reject them," says he, "in the absence of an 
express interdict; certainly it is not less respon- 
sible to admit them in the absence of an express 
command. If, in rejecting them, there is danger 
of offending a ' little one that believes ' in Christ; 
so also, in receiving them, there is danger of 
diverting the ordinance from its intended appli- 
cation, and profaning its sanctity. If express 



OPEN COMMUNION DESTROYS. 211 

precept is what the advocates of mixed commun- 
ion demand, certainly they are in no better case 
than we are. And we have the same authority 
for rejecting, as they have for receiving rnibap- 
tized persons to the table of the Lord; and, as 
far as we can judge, they incur a responsibility 
of no less magnitude than we ourselves. The 
truth is, that the preponderance op Scrip- 
ture EVIDENCE IS AGAINST MIXED COMMUN- 
ION." (On Baptism, p. 186.) 



212 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

INFANT COMMUNION. 

I HAVE already showed that our terms of com- 
miuiiorL are as liberal as those of any other 
denominatiorL of Christians. May I suggest that 
we are more liberal at the Lord's table than the 
most of Christian denominations. We do com- 
mune with our own membership, the most of 
other denominations do not. The Methodists do 
not commune with all of their members. The 
Presbyterians do not. These denominations have 
baptized members that are not admitted to their 
own table. An infant, though it 'may have been 
made "federally holy," or "brought by baptism 
into the Church of Christ," is excluded from a 
Methodist or Presbyterian communion table. 
We are at least liberal enough to commune with 
our own members. 

I am no^ trifling. There is quite as much to 
prove infant communion as there is to prove in- 
fant baptism. They rest upon the same argu- 
ment; and the traditional history that would 
prove the antiquity of the one would prove the 
antiquity of the other. The Greek Church when 
it baptizes an infant also admits it to the Lord's 
table and feeds the child with a spoon. 



INFANT COMMUNION. 213 

I shall introduce some authorities on infant 
communion. 

Bingham says: Nor was this confirmation after 
baptism "only true with respect to adult per- 
sons, but also with respect to infants, who were 
anciently confirmed with the imposition of hands 
and the holy chrism, or unction, as soon as they 
were baptized; which will, perhaps, seem a para- 
dox to many who look no further than the prac- 
tice of later ages: but it may be undeniably 
learned in two ways. 1. From the plain testi- 
mony of the ancients declaring it to be so; and 
2. From that known custom and usage of the 
church, in giving the eucharist to infants, which 
ordinarily presupposes their confirmation. " (An- 
tiquities Christian Church, B. XII, C. 1, vol. 1, 
p. 544.) 

Salmasius, a learned Catholic, says: ''It was 
the invariable practice to give the catechumens 
the eucharist immediately after they were bap- 
tized. Afterwards the opinion prevailed that no 
one could be saved unless he were baptized, so 
the custom of baptizing infants was introduced. 
And because to adult catechumens, as soon as 
they were baptized, no space of time intervening, 
the eucharist was given, so after pedobaptism 
was introduced, this was also done in the case of 
infants." (Trans., p. 495.) 

Bishop Bossuet affirms: "The church has al- 
ways believed, and still believes, that infants are 



214 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

capable of receiving the eucharist as well as 
baptism, and finds no more obstacle to their com- 
munion in the 'words of St. Paul, ' Let a man ex- 
amine himself and so let him eat; ' than she finds 
to their baptism in these words of the Lord, 
' Teach and baptize. ' But as she knew that the 
eucharist could not be absolutely necessary to 
their salvation, after they had received the full 
remission of sins in their baptism, she believed 
it was a matter of discipline to give or not to 
give the communion in this age; thus it is that 
during the first eleven or twelve centuries she, 
for good reasons, gave it; and for other reasons, 
equally good, has since then ceased to give it. " 
(Traite Com., P. i, p. 3.) 

Gieseler says: "The use of exorcism is dis- 
tinctly mentioned, and all who had been baptized, 
even the children, partook of the eucharist." 
(Church History, vol. 1, p. 159.) 

Lundy, Episcopalian, says: "All, therefore, 
whether young or old, whether infants at the 
breast or those who had attained their full 
growth and maturity of body and mind, were 
alike baptized and alike partook of this heavenly 
manna. Otherwise, they must have perished. 
Baptism and the Eucharist, therefore, are for 
infants, just as much as for adults; and the 
Eucharist was given to infants in the universal 
church until the Council of Trent abolished the 
practice. Rather, it was the common use in the 



' 



INFANT COMMUNION. 215 

i]WO Churches, of the East and the West down to 
the twelfth century, when the Latin Church be- 
gan to discontinue the practice, until its official 
abolishment by the Council of Trent in the six- 
teenth century. It was the twenty-first session 
■of that Council, the fifth under Pius IV, that 
decreed an anathema against all who held or 
taught that both species of bread and wine were 
necessary to the validity of the Eucharist, coup- 
ling with this the anathema against the com- 
munion of infants. The first canon of that ses- 
sion is this : ' If any one shall say, from the Word 
of God that it is necessary to salvation for each 
or all the faithful of Christ that they ought to 
receive both species of the most holy sacrament 
of the Eucharist, let him be accursed. ' And then 
follows canon IV, which is this: ' If any one shall 
say, that the communion of the eucharist is 
necessary for children before they come to years 
of discretion, let him be accursed.' " (Monumen- 
tal Christianity, p. 376.) 

Dr. Coleman, Presbyterian, says: "After the 
general introduction of infant baptism the sacra- 
ment continued to be administered to all who 
had been baptized, whether infants or adults. 
The reason alleged by Cyprian and others for 
this practice was, that age was no impediment. 
Augustine strongly advocates the practice. The 
custom continued for several centuries. It is 
mentioned in the third Council of Tours, A. D. 



216 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

813; and even the Council of Trent, A. D. 1545^ 
only decreed that it should not be considered 
essential to salvation. It is still scrupulously ob- 
served by the Greek Church. " (Ancient Chris- 
tianity Exemplified, C. 22, sec. 8, p. 310.) 

Schaff, Presbyterian, says: In North Africa, 
"in Cyprian's time, we find the custom of infant 
communion (administered with wine alone) which 
was justified from John 6:53, and has continued 
in the Greek (and Russian) church to this day, 
though irreconcilable with the apostle's requisi- 
tion of a preparatory examination." (History 
Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 239.) 

Dr. Bennett, Methodist, says: "Since the 
church from the beginning of the third century 
accounted infants as proper subjects of infant 
baptism, and regarded this as the proper initia- 
tory rite mto the Church — ratifying the mem- 
bership by the holy unction and confirmation — 
she consistently admitted infants to the Lord's 
Supper. Of this there is abundant proof as early 
as the third century." (Archaeology, p. 424.) 

The fathers make the practice of infant com- 
munion well nigh universal. For the East, where 
it still flourishes, we have the testimony of the 
so-called liturgy of Clement, in which little chil- 
dren (paidia) are ordered to receive immediately 
after all who have any special dedication, ' ' and 
then all the people in order." (Constit. Apostles, 
1. viii, c. 13.) Pseudo-Dyonisius, possibly of the- 



INFANT COMMUNION. 217 

fifth century, but more probably of the sixth, 
says that ' ' children who cannot understand di- 
vine things are yet made partakers of divine 
generation, and of the divine communion of the 
most sacred mysteries." (De Eccl. Hierarch., 
c. vii, sec. 11.) Evagrius, who completed his his- 
tory in 594, proves the continued observance of 
the rite,^where he mentions an ''ancient custom" 
at Constantinople, ' ' when there remained a good 
quantity of the holy portions of the undefiled 
body of Christ our God, uncorrupted boys from 
among those who attended the school of the 
undermaster were sent to consume them." (lib. 
iv, c. 36.) There is a story told by John Moschus, 
A. D. 630, of some children who imitated among 
themselves the celebration of the Eucharist, as 
they had witnessed and taken part in it them- 
selves." (Pratum Spirit., c. 196.) 

The earliest witness in the Latin church is 
Cyprian, who writing in 251, relates how the 
agitation of an infant to whom the cup was of- 
fered, led to the discovery of its having been 
taken to a heathen sacrifice. He also represents 
the children of apostates as able to plead at the 
day of judgment: "We have done nothing; nor 
have we hastened of our own accord to those 
profane defilements, forsaking the meat and cup 
of the Lord." (De Lapsis.) Augustine says: 
"They are infants; but they are made partakers 
of his Table, that they may have life in them- 
selves." (Sermon 174, sec. 7.) 



218 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

The same practice was common in England. 
Hart says: "Infant communion was a very 
ancient practice, and is said to have prevailed 
generally in the church for six hundred years. 
In the address of our countryman ^Ifric to the 
priesthood at the delivery of the chrism, he says : 
' Ye should give the Eucharist to children when 
they are baptized, and let them be brought to 
mass that they may receive it all the seven days 
that they are unwashed.'" (Eccl. Rec, p. 188.) 
So late as A. D. 1073, infant communion was still 
practiced in England. (Wilkin's Concilia Magnse 
Brit., vol. 1, p. 361.) 

It is useless to assert that this is of no impor- 
tance. Dr. Dwight declares this is a matter of 
much importance, and that the teaching of the 
Pedobaptists on this point is erroneous. Says 
he: "It is objected further that all baptized per- 
sons are by that class of Christians to whom I 
have attached myself, considered as members of 
the Christian church; yet those who are baptized 
in infancy, are not treated as possessed of that 
character; particularly, they are not admitted to 
the sacramental supper; nor made objects of 
ecclesiastical discipline. As this object has in 
my own view, a more serious import than any 
other which has been alleged, it deserves par- 
ticular consideration. In the first place, I ac- 
knowledge without hesitation, that the conduct 
of those with whom I am in immediate commun- 



INFANT COMMUNION. 219 

ion, and so far as I know their opinions also, 
with regard to this subject, are in a greater 
or less degree, erroneous and indefensible." 
(Dwight's Theology, Sermon 157, vol. 4, p. 317.) 
From the above reasoning I reach two conclu- 
sions: 1. Infant communion is as authoritative 
as infant baptism. 2. And what is more to our 
point, as long as our Pedobaptist friends disre- 
gard the voice of all antiquity, and will not com- 
mune with their own children, they ought not to 
accuse us of being illiberal. We, at least, do 
commune with our own membership. 



220 • CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

OPEN COMMUNIONISTS DO NOT ENDORSE EACH 

OTHER. 

OPEN comm-unionists make a great show of 
Christian -luiion; and yet they say the most 
bitter and harsh things against each other. They 
make a show of endorsing each other when they 
celebrate together, which is seldom, the Lord's 
Supper; and the rest of the time they spend in 
denouncing each other's doctrines. This is nei- 
ther good sense nor good policy. I shall indicate 
some points of difference among open commun- 
ionists. 

1. Some one may say that to have an open 
table is not an endorsement of each other's doc- 
trines. I claim that where one denomination sits 
down to the Lord's Supper with another denomi- 
nation it thereby says we have no differences be- 
tween us. It is an endorsement of the other's 
position; and it is invariably so understood by 
the people. It says: "Your church is as good 
as mine ; and really there is no difference between 
us." If that is the truth, why have two separate 
organizations? For men to sit down to the Lord's 
table proclaiming that there is no difference be- 
tween Christians, and then to get up and x^erpet- 



DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 221 

uate party strife and antagonistic organizations, 
is sinful in the sight of God. Every reason that 
would proclaim a common table, would demand 
a union between such parties. I have no faith in 
the so-called liberal principles of those who 
preach unity at an open table, and practice dis- 
sensions away from it. 

That open communionists understand that 
joint participation is an endorsement of each 
other's doctrines is made clear by Dr. Dwight. 
He says: "In baptism. Christians appear as sub- 
jects to this ordinance but once in their lives; 
and most of them at this appearance, being in- 
fants, are altogether passive. At the Lord's 
Supper they are always voluntary, active par- 
takers; and appear often in this character, 
throughout their whole Christian life. They ap- 
pear at the table of Christ in a body; as members 
of him, the Head. They appear as Christian 
friends and brethren; and are, all members one 
of another. They appear as open professors of 
his religion; as his followers; as attached to his 
cause; as interested in his death; as expectants 
of his coming; as voluntary subjects of his gov- 
ernment. They exhibit themselves as being 
united in one Faith, one Baptism, one Worship, 
one System of Doctrines, and Duties, and one 
scheme of Communion, and Discipline; as having 
one common interest, one common pilgrimage, 
and one final home. All of these things are ex- 



222 CLOSE COMMUNIOX. 

hibited and established by the Lord's Supper."" 
(Theology Explained and Defended, vol. 4, p. 
364.) 

How Methodists, Presbyterians, the • -'Christian 
Church," and others can endorse each other's 
doctrines, as they do at the Lord's table, is be- 
yond my concex3tion. But I shall j^i^oceed to 
point out some dijfferences. 

2. They differ in doctrines. Take the Presby- 
terians and Methodists on the single jDoint of 
predestination. John TVesley called ]Dredestina- 
tion by every foul name. He says in his sermon 
on Free Grace, number 54: •'•This doctrine not 
only tends to destroy Christian holiness, happi- 
ness and good works, but has also a dii^ect and 
manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Chris- 
tian revelation. * * * It represents our blessed 
Lord, as a hypocrite, a deceiver, of the people, 
a man void of sincerity. * * - it represents the 
most holy God as worse than the devil; as more 
false, more cruel, more unjust. * * * This is the 
blasphemy for which I abhor the doctrine of 
predestination. *' 

John Calvin was scarcely less bitter in his de- 
nunciation of Arminianism. He says : • • The ene- 
mies of God's predestination are stupid and 
ignorant and the devil hath plunged out their 
eyes. " " Such men fight against the Holy Ghost, 
like mad beasts, and endeavor to abolish the 
holy Scripture. There is more honesty in the 



DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 223'^ 

Papists than in these men; for the doctrines of 
the Papists are a great deal better, more holy, 
and more agreeable to the sacred Scriptures, 
than the doctrines of these vile and wicked men, 
who cast down God's holy election — these dogs 
that bark at it, and swine that root it up." 

Methodists and Presbyterians may not now 
vilify each other in this way, but they are no 
nearer agreed on predestination than were Calvin 
and Wesley. 

John Wesley's brother, Charles Wesley, wrote 
a polemical poem on "The Horrible Decree," in 
which his poetic genius left him, as may be in- 
ferred from the following specimens: 

" Oh horrible Decree, 

Worthy of whence it came. 
Forgive their hellish blasphemy, 

Who charge it on the Lamb. 
To limit thee, they dare 

Blaspheme thee to thy face, 
Deny their fellow worms a share 

In thy redeeming grace." 

In a poem on Predestination, he prays: 

"Increase (if that can be) 

The perfect hate I feel 
To Satan's Horrible Decree, 

That genuine child of hell; 
Which feigns thee to pass by 

The most of Adam's race. 
And leave them in their blood to die, 

Shut out from saving grace." 



224 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Dr. Bledsoe, a great Southern Methodist, is 
reported to have said: "1 would prefer to wor- 
ship a huge gorilla than the Presbyterian's God." 

How a staid, well regulated Presbyterian can 
sit down to the Methodist Supper and endorse 
such statements I do not know. 

But the Presbyterians have been scarcely less 
denunciatory of Methodist doctrines. John Cal- 
vin said as severe things about Arminianism as 
John Wesley had about predestination. The 
Presbyterians have not yet forgiven Wesley. 
Dr. Schaff sums up Wesley's position thus: 
* ' Wesley began to thunder against the imaginary 
horrors and blasphemies of Calvinism which has 
since resounded from innumerable Methodist 
pu]pits. He defines predestination to be 'an 
eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God 
by virtue of which one part of mankind are 
infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned; 
it being impossible that any of the former should 
be damned, and that any of the latter should be 
saved;' and then he goes on to show that this 
doctrine makes all preaching useless; that he 
makes void the ordinances of God; and it tends 
directly to destroy holiness, meekness, and love. 
The comfort and happiness of religion, zeal for 
good works, and the whole Christian religion, 
that it turns God into a hypocrite and deceiver; 
that it overturns his justice, mercy and truth, 
and represents him 'as worse than the devil, 



DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 225 

more false and more cruel and more unjust.' 
'^his,' says he, 'is the blasphemy clearly con- 
tained in the horrible decree of predestination, 
and for this I abhor it (however I love the people 
who assert it.)'" (Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, 
pp. 895, 896.) 

I submit that people who abuse each other in 
this manner ought not to talk of the sectarianism 
of the Baptists. 

Perhaps the ' 'Christian Church, "or ' 'Disciples, " 
says more about Christian union than any other; 
and yet the "Disciples" fearfully denounce those 
who do not agree with them. I present one exam- 
ple out of many that could be chosen. Rev. John 
F. Rowe, in an article on "Christian Unity, " says: 
* ' The very fact that the various denominations 
^lory in distinctive titles — in the nomenclature 
of spiritual Babylon — convinces us of insincerity 
in seeking Christian union upon the basis of the 
Bible. While professing to be 'spiritually united, ' 
hecause they cannot ecclesiastically harmonize, 
they live in constant fear of each other, and are 
envious of each other's popularity; and, rather 
than despise popularity and walk humbly with 
the humble Christ — walk in the pure light of 
God's word — they willfully adhere to what they 
know to be disturbing elements to the peace of 
the Church. In this state of mind they are 
neither spiritually nor ecclesiastically united. 
"Whenever all of these parties as individuals shall 

15 



226 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

come to be united in Christ, their spiritual Head 
(and some think they see the golden day ap- 
proaching), all of this ecclesiastical trumpery 
will be relegated to the dark dominions of Baby- 
lon, whence it came. Christian unity stands still 
until this turn is made. It is the love of power — 
the love of ecclesiastical distinction — and the 
pride of opinionism, which prevents the consum- 
mation of Christian unity . " (Christian Review, 
1887, p. 233.) 

I have been long persuaded that those who are 
the loudest in their abuse of Baptists and Close 
Communion, and are disposed to make the most 
capital out of it, are insincere and make this a. 
rallying cry of strife. Sectarianism and a desire 
for popularity is at the bottom of the whole 
open-communion business. Whenever you hear 
a man, or denomination, boasting how wonder- 
fully liberal he or it is, and that "one church is 
as good as another," you may know that the 
whole thing is false, and that he is the most bit- 
ter sectarian in the country. What we need at. 
this time is Christian manliness, an open-hearted 
declaration of what we believe, an honest appeal 
to the word of God; then the day of Christian 
union is not far away. 

3. In church government. Dr. Charles Hodge 
so admirably states the case that I gladly adopt 
his words. He says : " It is clearly impossible 
that Romanists and Protestants should be united 



DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 227 

in the same ecclesiastical organization. It is no 
less impossible that anything more than a federal 
union, such as may exist between independent 
nations, can be formed between Prelatists and. 
Presbyterians, between Baptists and Pedobap- 
tists, between Congregationalists and any other 
denomination recognizing the authority of 
Church Courts. The principles conscientiously 
adopted by these different bodies are not only 
different, but antagonistic and incompatible.. 
Those who hold them can no more form one^ 
church than despotism and democracy can be 
united in the constitution of the same State. If 
by divine right all authority vests in the king, it 
cannpt vest in the people. The advocates of 
these opposite theories therefore cannot unite in 
one form of government. It is no less obvious 
that if ecclesiastical power vests in one man — 
the bishop — it cannot vest in the presbytery. 
Episcopalians and Presbyterians cannot there- 
fore unite. The latter deny the right of the 
bishop to the prerogatives which he claims; and 
the former deny the right of the presbytery 
which it assumes. The same thing is equally 
plain of Presbyterians and Congregationalists. 
The former regard themselves as bound by the 
decisions of sessions and presbyteries; the latter 
refuse to recognize the right of Church courts to 
exercise discipline or government. So long, 
therefore, so much difference exist among Chris- 



228 CLOSE COMMUXIOX. 

tians, it is plain that Romanists, Episcopalians, 
Presbyterians and Congregationalists, must form 
separate and independent bodies." (Church. Pol- 
ity,, p. 96.) 

If Dr. Hodge is right in this, and he undoubt- 
edly is, why do Methodists and Presbyterians on 
"sacramental occasions" go through the solemn 
mockery of saying : ' ' There is no difference, one 
church is as good as another." Why then not 
unite in one organization? If there "is no differ- 
ence ■" in keeping up different churches, and thus 
dividing the Christian world, they are sinning 
before Grod. There is a difference, great and 
mighty barriers have been placed in the way of 
Christian union. The very thing that would 
keep them from uniting in one organization 
would logically keep them from communing to- 
gether. Quit preaching union that never unites; 
and show us something of the beautiful fruits of 
real union. 

Not only are these denominations at war with 
one another, they are not at peace among them- 
selves. The A'arious and sundry branches of 
Methodists ought to come to some agreement 
among themselves, before they preach too often 
on • • BajDtist close communion. " In a number of 
the States two different Methodist bodies are 
striving to occupy the same territory. It is no 
"uncommon thing to find in a little ^-illage, scarcely 
able to support one church, two rival Methodist 



DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 22^ 

churches; and the vindictive rivalry is not edify- 
ing to an outsider. The ' ' Northern and South- 
ern Methodists'' are not in heavenly accord. 
The following clipping from a well-known news- 
paper does not overstate the case: 

'•The Southern Methodist church having,, 
through its representatives in the Council, de- 
clined for the hundredth time to commit suicide 
as a church, and turn its effects over to the 
North, the Northern bishops could no longer re- 
strain the full expression of their brotherly love. 
In a recent consultation of war, not against the 
world, the flesh and the devil, but against South- 
ern Methodists, Bishop Fowler said: 'They are 
as thoroughly rebel as they ever were. ' ' That's, 
so,' said Bishop Mallalieu, and added: 'We have 
gained the cause in Kentucky, Missouri and Ten- 
nessee, and driven the Southern Methodists to 
their dens ; and what we have done there we can 
do in the next belt. ' The 'dens' in Louisville are 
very handsome large buildings, filled with con- 
gregations. 

' ' To say the least of it, the Methodist millen- 
nium is not yet." 

There is at this time, 1892, in progress a vio- 
lent discussion between the Northern and South- 
ern Methodists. Bishop Merrill, claiming to 
write in a spirit of conservatism, has written a 
book on the " Organic Union of American Meth- 
odism," that is little less than a smoking volcano. 



230 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

He says of the Southern Methodists: "It was 
noticeable that the representatives of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, remained silent 
on that occasion (at the Ecumenical Conference) 
so far as organic union was concerned. From 
that silence, and from the comments afterward 
m.ade in their papers, it is readily inferred that 
those in position to direct public sentiment in the 
Southern Church are opposed to the agitation of 
this subject. For years past there has been a 
studied effort on their part to avoid this discus- 
sion." (Organic Union, p. 20.) 

And of the tremendous task of uniting these 
two Methodist factions, he says: "To expect this 
grand consummation to be brought about with- 
out an effort, would be visionary indeed. Time, 
study, preparation, and sacrifice will be required; 
and this, after the purpose has been formed to 
reach the end, as well as in the preliminary steps 
that lead to that purpose. He who fails to ap- 
preciate the magnitude of the undertaking is not 
prepared for the discussion of the subject, nor to 
sit in judgment on the issue when it is presented. 
No thoughtful person will look upon it as other 
than an enterprise of proportions equal to any- 
thing heretofore attempted in the history of 
religious denominations.'' (Organic Union, pp. 
9, 10.) But the Bishop says he is not sanguine 
of this result in his day. 

Dr. E. E. Hoss, Editor of the NashvHle Chris- 



DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 231 

tian Advocate, ends a lengthy review of Bishop 
Merrill's book with a challenge for a public writ- 
ten discussion. Among other things, he says: 
"There is no mistaking Bishop Merrill's object. 
He avows that it is his desire to promote the 
consolidation of the various branches of Amer- 
ican Methodism into one compact and powerful 
organization. It is our duty to tell him with the 
utmost plainness of speech that his book will 
help to delay the consummation of such a result. 
Though he sets out with the manifest purpose to 
be fair and just, he does not go far till he shows 
that he is largely under the dominion of sec- 
tional and ecclesiastical prejudice. His method 
of approach to our Church is much as if he 
should say: 'Come, come my good brethren, in 
all of the disputes between us you have been 
wholly in the wrong. I call upon you in the 
most fraternal spirit to abandon your convic- 
tions, and to accept mine in their place.' "Whether 
this is the proper temper in which the healing of 
an old quarrel should be undertaken, we shall 
not pause to consider." (Christian Advocate, 
February 18th, 1892.) 

The fraternal messenger of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, sent to the General Con- 
ference, at Omaha, was hissed while on the floor 
of that body. The New Orleans Christian Advo- 
•cate, May 26th, 1892, says: 

"The dispatches state that when our f rater- 



232 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

nal messenger to the General Conference, at 
Omaha, Dr. J. J. Tigert, in the course of his 
speech to that body, remarked that the ' South- 
ern whites were the negroes' best friends,' the 
statement was greeted with hissings! This was 
an unpardonable offense. The M. E. Church had 
as well cease prating about fraternity and union, 
if our representative to their highest body is to 
be treated with such indignity and no protest 
made as publicly as the hissing was done! " 

I have no disposition to enter into a discussion 
of this nature, but I do wish to say, that until 
the Methodists quit perpetrating upon the Chris- 
tian world, such discussions as these, in all good 
conscience they ought to cease talking about 
''Baptist close communion," even though it be as 
bad as the average Methodist pictures it to be. 

The Presbyterians are scarcely better off than 
the Methodists, with this additional difficulty 
that their discussions are on the most vital ques- 
tions of doctrine. 

And the Episcopalians come forward and de- 
clare that the Presbyterians are not ordained. 
Palmer says: "These questions, however, are 
not essential in the discussion of the Presbyterian 
ordinations; for it is certain, that such ordina- 
tions having been performed without any neces- 
sity, and in opposition to the authority of the 
bishops of Scotland, were in their origin illegiti- 
mate and schismatical; and the Catholic church in 



DO NOT ENDORSE EACH OTHER. 233 

all ages has rejected such ordmations, and ac- 
counted them null; therefore the Presbyterian 
establishment being founded in schism, and 
destitute of an apostolic ministry, constitutes no 
part of the visible church of Christ." (Church 
of Christ, vol. 1, p. 443.) 

We Baptists humbly suggest that our own 
doctrines are scriptural and rational, and that 
our Methodist and Presbyterian brethren have 
ample opportunities to invest their spare time in 
looking after their own schisms. 

4. Open communionists do not agree among 
themselves as to the nature and design of the 
Lord's Supper. They will sit down and eat of 
the bread and drink of the wine, and get up and 
wrangle over the significance of the thing they 
have done. One declares that he ate of the body 
and blood of the Son of God; and the other de- 
nies that it is more than a remembrance- of the 
Son of God. The mere observance of the Lord's 
Supper has never been a bond of union for a 
moment to a single congregation. The whole 
thing of open communion is farcical, unscrip- 
tural and impolitic. 



234 CLOSE COMMUNION. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

OPEN COMMUNION IS A WORN OUT HERESY BOR- 
ROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. 

THE fact is that the whole system of open 
comnninion originated with the Baptists, 
and has been borrowed from us by others. Pre- 
vious to John Bunyan, and some of his followers, 
open communion was not heard of in the world. 
Open communion was not found in the Bible, but 
borrowed from the Baptists. It is an old heresy 
that we well nigh discarded long ago, because it 
was not Scriptural nor practical, and in more 
recent years some people think they have made 
a great discovery. 

Among the Baptists of England open commun- 
ion has never had more than a transient popu- 
larity. Our Confessions of Faith have all, with 
one exception, and that one does not mention 
the subject, been in favor of restricted commun- 
ion. I quote these Confessions, not as authori- 
tative, for Baptists recognize nothing as author- 
itative except the holy Scriptures, but as giving 
our position and history in regard to this ordi- 
nance. (See Confessions of Faith of the Baptist 
<3hurches of England, London, 1854.) 

From the Schleitheim Confession, one of the 



BORROWED PROM THE BAPTISTS. 235 

oldest Baptist documents known, 1527: ''All who 
would break one bread for a memorial of the bro- 
ken body of Christ, and all who would drink one 
draught as a memorial of the poured out blood of 
Christ, should before hand be united to one body 
of Christ; that is, to the church of God, of which- 
the head is Christ, to- wit, by baptism." 

From the Confession of John Smyth and his 
church, 1610: "The holy Supper, according to 
the institution of Christ, is to be administered to 
the baptized; as the Lord Jesus hath commanded 
that whatsoever he hath appointed should be 
taught to be observed. " 

From another and longer form of the same: 
' ' That only the baptized are to taste the elements 
of the Lord's Supper. " 

From the Confession of Seven London 
Churches, 1544: "Baptism is an ordinance of the 
New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed 
upon persons professing faith, or that are made 
disciples; who, upon profession of faith, ought 
to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord's 
Supper." 

From the appendix to the above, prepared by 
Benjamin Cox: "Though a believer's right to the 
use of the Lord's Supper do immediately flow 
from Jesus Christ apprehended and received by 
faith; yet inasmuch as all things ought to be 
done not only decently, but also in order, 1 Cor. 
14:40; and the Word holds forth this order, that 



236 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

disciples should be baptized. Matt. 28:19; Acts 
2:38; and then be taught to observe all things 
(that is to say, all other things) that Christ com- 
manded the Apostles, Matt. 28:20; and accord- 
ingly the Apostles first baptized disciples, and 
then adraitted them to the use of the Supper, 
Acts 2:4-42; we therefore do not admit any to 
the use of the Supper, nor communicate with any 
in the use of this ordinance, but disciples bap- 
tized, lest we should have fellowship with them 
in their doing contrary to order." 

From the Somerset Confession, 1656: "That it 
is the duty of every man and woman, that have 
repented from the dead works, and have faith 
toward God, to be baptized * * ^ And being 
thus planted in the visible church or body of 
Christ ^^ * * do walk together in communion, 
in all the commandments of Jesus. * * - That 
we believe some of those commandments further 
to be as foUoweth: 1. Constancy in j^rayer. 2. 
Breaking of bread," etc. (The omissions are 
mainly passages of Scripture quoted in proof of 
the statements.) 

From a brief Confession of Faith (London, 
1660) : ' ' That the right and only wslj of gather- 
ing churches (according to Christ's appointment. 
Matt. 28:19,20) is first to teach or preach the 
gospel (Mark 16:16) to the sons and daughters 
of men; and then to baptize (that is English, to 
dip) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy' 



BORROWED PROM THE BAPTISTS. 237 

Spirit, or in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
such only of them as profess repentance towards 
God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 
* * * That is the duty of such who are consti- 
tuted as aforesaid, to continue steadfastly in 
Christ's and the Apostles' doctrines, and assem- 
hling together, in fellowship, in breaking of 
bread, and prayers (Acts 2:42)." 

From an Orthodox Creed, 1678: "And no un- 
baptized, unbelieving, or open profane, or wicked 
heretical persons, ought to be admitted to this 
ordinance to profane it. " 

The only Baptist Confession extant that fails 
to speak explicitly for. restricted communion is 
that of 1698, which is designedly silent for the 
reason stated in the appendix to that document: 
* ' We are not insensible, that as to the order of 
God's house, and entire communion therein, there 
are some things wherein we (as well as others) 
are not at full accord among ourselves; as for 
instance, the known principle and state of the 
consciences of divers of us, that have agreed in 
this confession is such, that we cannot hold 
church communion with any other than baptized 
believers, and churches constituted of such; yet 
some others of us have a greater liberty and free- 
dom in our spirits that way; and, therefore, we 
have purposely omitted the mention of things of 
that nature, that we might concur in giving this 
evidence of our agreement, both among ourselves 



238 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

and with other good Christians, in those impor- 
tant articles of the Christian religion, mainljr 
insisted on by ns; and this, notwithstanding, we 
all esteem it our chief concern, both among our- 
selves and all others that in every place call 
upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our 
Lord, both theirs and ours, and love him in sin- 
cerity, to endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit 
in the bond of peace; and in order thereunto, to 
exercise all lowliness and meekness, with long- 
suffering, forbearing one another in love." 

After Bunyan's time the controversy dropped 
until the latter part of the eighteenth century. 
Baptists, and so far as I know no one else, held 
to open communion. 

Abraham Booth, in his able Vindication of the 
Baptists, gives the exact history of this thing. 
He says: "If we appeal to the persuasion and 
practice of Christians in all ages and nations, it 
will clearly appear, that baptism was universally 
considered, by the churches of Christ, as a di- 
vinely appointed prerequisite to the Lord's Sup- 
per, till about the middle of the last (eighteenth) 
century, here in England, when some few of the 
Baptists began to call it in question, and prac- 
tically to deny it. This our brethren now do who- 
defend and practice free communion. * * * 
The ingenious author of the ' Pilgrim's Progress ' 
was one of the first in this Kingdom who dared 
to assert that the want of baptism is ' no bar to* 



BORROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. 239 

communion,' and acted accordingly." (Booth's 
Apology for the Baptists, Works, vol. 2, pp. 360, 
361, 364.) 

Dr. Wall says the Baptists of his time were 
strict communionists. ' ' I know, " says he, ' ' that 
the antipsedobaptists do not admit to the Lord's 
Supper, when it is administered by themselves, 
any but that are baptized in their way. * * * 
One thing I am persuaded of concerning the anti- 
psedobaptists ; and that is, that if they were con- 
vmced that this joining in the public service of 
the Church were lawful and practicable for 
them, they would join at another rate than some 
shifting people do nowadays. I take them gen- 
erally to be cordial, open, and frank expressers 
of their sentiments." (Wall's History Infant 
Baptism, vol. 1, pp. 686, 688.) 

That open communion originated with the 
Baptists, and was an unheard-of thing, is amply 
proved by Dr. John Dick, the eminent Presby- 
terian scholar. Dr. Dick says : ' ' Our Lord has 
shown for whose use this ordinance is intended, 
by administering it to his disciples; and a con- 
clusion may be deduced from the passover, to 
which the Israelites alone had access, and those 
who had joined themselves to them by submit- 
ting to circumcision. ' This is the ordinance of 
the passover: There shall no stranger eat there- 
of. And when a stranger shall sojourn with 
thee, and will keep the passover of the Lord, let. 



240 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

all his males be circumcised, and then let him 
come near and keep it, and he shall be as one 
that is born in the land: for no nncircumcised 
person shall eat thereof. ' Since circumcision was 
an indispensable qualification for eating the 
passover, it follows that baptism, which has suc- 
ceeded to it, is requisite to entitle a person to a 
seat to the table of the Lord. I do not know that 
this was ever called in question till lately, that a 
controversy has arisen among the English Bap- 
tists, whether persons of other Christian denom- 
inations may not be occasionally admitted to the 
holy communion with them; and it became neces- 
sary for those who adopted the affirmative, to 
maintain that baptism is not a previous condi- 
tion. This assertion arose out of the peculiar 
system, which denies the validity of infant bap- 
tism. But to every man who contents himself 
with a plain view of the subject, and has no pur- 
pose to serve by subtleties and refinements, it 
will appear that baptism is as much the initiating 
ordinance of the Christian, as circumcision was 
of the Jewish dispensation. An uncircumcised 
man was not permitted to eat the passover, and 
an unbaptized man should not be permitted to 
partake of the Eucharist." (Dick's Theology, 
Lecture 92, p. 421.) 

It was the eloquent Robert Hall that made 
open communion popular. In common with all 
other Baptists he rejected infant baptism and 



BORROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. 241 

affusion. He did not believe that Pedobaptists 
were baptized at all. He likewise held that bap- 
tism was not a prerequisite to communion. 

Pastor Charles H. Spurgeon is often quoted in 
this connection. His view was somewhat peculiar. 
In speaking of a visit to Mr. Spurgeon, in May, 
1881, Rev. H. L. Wayland, D.D., editor of the 
National Baptist, writes in that paper, July 7th, 
1881, as follows : ' ' Having heard varying state- 
ments as to his views of the communion question, 
I thought I would not lose the opportunity of 
learning at first hands what his position was. 
He said: 'We occupy a conservative position 
among our churches on that matter. I believe 
that baptism and the Lord's Supper are the priv- 
ilege of all Christians. I believe that any Chris- 
tian has a right to be baptized; and any Christian 
has a right to baptize, and especially any minister. 
So I believe any Christian has a right to partake 
of the Lord's Supper. When I am at Mentone, 
it is a great pleasure to me to . break bread for 
all Christians who desire to unite in the Supper. 
But I do not believe that any one should be ad- 
mitted to the church without baptism. If any 
person of credible Christian character comes to 
us and asks to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, 
we give him the privilege for three months, at 
the end of that time we say to him : ' You have 
had an opportunity to know our views and our 

16 



242 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

practice; if you choose to imite with us, we shall 
be glad to receive you. If not, you had better go 
to those with whom you are in fuller sympathy. ' 
And in ninety- nine times out of an hundred the 
person says: 'I have seen your ways; and I am 
satisfied to be baptized. ' " 

No man denounced infant baptism, and espe- 
cially infant baptismal salvation, with more ter- 
rific severity than did Mr. Spurgeon. Yet. he 
practically nullified this by allowing the unbap- 
tized to commune with his church; but he did not 
permit them to become members until they had 
been immersed upon a profession of their faith. 
At the end of three months, if such persons did 
not wish to be baptized, they were asked to dis- 
continue their approach to the communion table. 
Their non-membership, said Mr. Spurgeon, ren- 
dered them ineligible to church membership; their 
non-baptism, say I, rendered them ineligible to 
the Lord's Supper. I go farther than this, and 
say, that membership in a Scriptural church is a 
supreme prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, while 
baptism is a prerequisite because it is indispen- 
sable to church membership. All that is needed 
to refute the opinion of Robert Hall and Mr. 
Spurgeon is the commission of our Lord: "Go 
disciple all nations, baptizing them," etc. It is 
perfectly evident that discipleship preceded bap- 
tism, and between discipleship and baptism. 



BORROWED FROM THE BAPTISTS. 243 

which is an immediate duty upon believing, there 
is no room for the observance of the Lord's 
Supper. 

I am sure that Spurgeon was not antagonistic 
to Baptist principles, as held by us in America. 
Dr. "William E. Hatcher writes, in the Religious. 
Herald, March 3rd, 1892: "But it yet remains to 
record his most emphatic and memorable utter- 
ance with reference to the American Baptists: 
'I have,' he said, 'not one word of unfriendly 
criticism to utter against my Baptist brethren 
beyond the Atlantic. On the contrary, I believe 
that the Baptists of America are the best Bap- 
tists in the world, and that the best Baptists in 
America are the Baptists of the South. More- 
over, if I were to come to America to live, I 
would join a close communion church and con- 
form myself to its practices on the Communion 
question. ' As we talked further, he said that it 
was impossible for an outsider fully to under- 
stand the Baptist situation in England, and even 
the little that I saw and heard convinced me that 
American Baptists need to exercise charity and 
forbearance toward their English brethren. 
They have persecutions and complications to 
which we are strangers, and if they do not hold 
all of the distinctive views for which we stand, 
we ought, at least, to rejoice for such testimony, 
in favor of the truth, as they are so nobly bear- 
ing." 



244 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

The Journal and Messenger publishes a paper 
on Spurgeon, read before the Cleveland Baptist 
Ministers' Conference, by the Rev. W. A. Perrins, 
late of Spurgeon's College, which gives valuable 
testimony concerning the great preacher's views 
on " close communion. " 

Mr. Perrins says: "Wrong impressions have 
^one abroad in regard to his position in respect 
to the communion question. This has led some 
other denominations to claim him as their own. 
But he was a Baptist to the backbone and at 
heart a close communionist. My last interview 
with him, a few days previous to my leaving for 
this country, proves this. After a very lengthy 
conversation on subjects relative to American 
theology, he said : ' Have you made up your mind 
on the communion question? You are going to a 
country where the majority of Baptists are close 
communionists. Really, if I had to begin my 
m.inistry again, I should certainly commence 
WT-th a close-communion church. I am led to 
believe the American Baptists are right, but I 
cannot alter the usages of my church, which 
liave been of so long standing.'" 

Dr. Edward Parker, President of the Man- 
chester Baptist College, when in America in 
1889, said that Mr. Spurgeon was hardly looked 
upon in England as an Open Communionist, and 
Mr. Spurgeon said of himself: "As compared 



BORROWED PROM THE BAPTISTS. 245 

with the bulk of English Baptists, I am a strict 
communionist myself, as my church fellowship 
is strictly of the baptized." 

Here then is the origin of open communion. 
John Bunyan was its father, and Robert Hall its 
most eloquent advocate. Whenever you hear 
other denominations boasting of their open com- 
munion, a quiet reminder would not be out of 
place, that open communion is a Baptist heresy, 
rejected by the most of Baptists, and that it was 
born over sixteen hundred years this side of the 
apostles. 

But up to this time open communion has not 
prevailed among the Baptists of Great Britain, 
nor is it likely to prevail. The open communion 
wing is rapidly declining, while the restricted 
communionists are constantly gaining ground. 
Rev. D. O. Davis, of Rockdale, England, ad- 
dressed the Southern Baptist Convention, in 
May, 1891. Among other things he said was 
that the close communionists constituted a ma- 
jority of the Baptists of Great Britain. His 
figures were as follows: "In Wales there are 
ninety thousand four hundred and seventy-nine 
Baptists, almost to a man close communionists. 
In Scotland, thirty-three thousand six hundred 
and thirty- seven, nearly all close communionists, 
so that we have in Wales and Scotland one hun- 
dred and twenty-five thousand one hundred and 



246 CLOSE COMMUNION. 

sixteen close com m unionists. We have in Eng- 
land at least sixty thousand close communionists. 
In the United Kingdom we have a total of one 
hundred and eighty-five thousand one hundred 
and sixteen close communionists. There are one 
hundred and thirty-four thousand six hundred 
and thirty-nine open communionists." 

THE END. 



INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS, 



PAGE 

Advance, The. . .112, 204, 208 
Alexander, Dr. Archi- 
bald 25 

Alford, Henry 36 

American Christian He- 
view 162 

American Presbyterian . . 84 

Antioch, Council of 39 

Apostolic Constitutions, 

42, 45 

Apostolic Times 158, 161 

Armitage, Thomas 194 

Asbury, Bishop 129, 

131, 138-140 

Assembly, General 89 

Augustine ... .41, 44, 49, 217 

Baird, Robert 17 

Bancroft, George 12 

Bannerman 55 

Baptism 163 

Baptismal salvation, 173; 
taught by The Disci- 
ples, 181; Episcopali- 
ans, 173; Presbyteri- 
ans, 175; Methodists. . 177 

Baptists, Bigoted, 8; Bi- 
ble Societies, 20; Char- 
ity, 190; Colleges, 16; 
Confessions of Faith, 
234; misunderstood, 7; 
ignorance of, 15; mis- 



PAQE 

sions, 19; Newspapers, 
17; Persecuted, 74-80, 
92-101, 114-117; Reli- 
gious liberty, 12-15; 

writers 17 

Barnes, Albert 26 

Basil 42 

Baumgarten 31 

Bede, Venerable 43 

Beecher, Edward 165 

Beecher, Henry Ward. . Ill 

Belgic Confession 62 

Bengel 31 

Bennett, Dr. C. W..119, 

172, 216 

Bingham 65, 213 

Bledsoe, A. T. .171, 178, 224 

Bloomfield 34 

Blount, J. J 31 

Bonaventure 43 

Booth, Abraham 238 

Bossuet, Bishop 213 

Bowman, Bishop 146 

Breckinridge, Robert.. 101 

Broadus, J. A 191 

Brownwell, Dr 71 

Bullinger 82 

Bullock, M. G 148 

Bunsen, Baron 40 

Bunyan, John. . .17, 234, 

238, 245 
Burgess, O. A 183 



248 



INDEX. 



PAGE 

Burial of the Dead 72 

Burkitt, Wm 26, 31, 34 

Burnet, Bishop 76 

Calvin, John. .28, 31, 81, 

92, 98, 176, 222, 224 
Campbell, Alexander. . . 

156-158, 181-183 

Catholics 61 

Carthage, Council of. 40, 44 

Cary 67 

Cassia 45 

Catechism, Longer .90, 185 

Caulkins, Dr. W 113 

Cave 66 

Chalmers, Thomas 15 

Cheetham, S 46, 64 

Christian Advocate, Nash- 
ville 198, 230 

Christian Advocate, New 

York 149, 153, 154 

Christian Advocate, New 

Orleans 231 

Christian Antiquities, 

writers on 58 

Christian Church not in 
agreement with Pedo- 

baptists, 225 

Christian Quarterly 158 

Christian union 10, 225 

Church of England, 
Thirty-nine Articles 

of 62, 66 

Church responsibility 

for discipline 202 

Church, writers on 54 

Clarke, Adam. . .26, 118, 204 
Clement 41, 216 



PAGE 

Close Communion, 7, 21; 
Christian Church, 156- 
162 ; Congregational 
Church, 109; Episco- 
pal Church, 64; Meth- 
odist Church, 118; 

Presbyterian 81 

Coke, Dr. Thomas, .. 129-139 
Coleman, Lyman. 45, 59, 215 

Collier 77, 78 

Conference, First Meth- 
odist 127 

Confirmation 68 

Congregationalist, The. . . 110 
Constitutions and Canons 72 

Coronation Oath 93 

Cox, Ben j 235 

Cox, Homersham 52 

Creeds, Confessions, etc. 

Testimony of 61-63 

Curtis 192 

Cuyler, T. L 18, 83 

Cyprian 216, 217 

Cyril of Jerusalem 41 

Dabney, Dr 57 

Davis, D. 245 

Dexter, H. M 109 

Dick, John 84, 239 

Didache, The 41 

DilBference between chu- 
rch communion and 
Christian communion 190 
Discipline, Methodist 63, 

118, 141-146, 177 

Dollinger 42, 47 

Drew. .130, 135, 136, 137, 138 
Dudley, Bishop T. U. . . . 73 



INDEX. 



249 



PAGE 

Dutch Confession 96 

Dwight, Dr. T..109, 218, 221 

Ellicott, C. J 35 

Engles, Dr 102 

Episcopal Church, Terms 

of Communion in the . 64 
Episcopalians and Pres- 
byterians not in har- 
mony 232 

Errett, 1 159, 183 

Evagrius 217 

Evil Livers 71 

Fathers, testimony of .39-49 

Featley, D 78 

Fisher, George P. 53, 94, 

109, 115, 116 

Foot 98 

French Confession 96 

Froude 75 

Fuller, Thomas 76, 164 

Gardner, W. W 192 

Gervinus 13 

Gieseler 51, 214 

Gibbon 52 

Gloag .....26, 32 

Godet 35 

Graham, Robert 158 

Greek Church 44, 61 

Green 60, 86 

Griffin, Dr 87 

Gregory and Ruter 53 

Guericke 48, 59 

Guthrie 100, 176 

Hall, John 88 

Hall, Robert.... 24, 156, 

240, 242 



PAGE 

Harnack, Dr 173 

Hart 218 

Hase 18 

Hatcher, Wm 243 

Hawks 80, 100, 131, 138 

Hedding, Bishop 141 

Heidelberg Catechism. . 62 
Hel viticConf ession, first, 

61, 94; second 62, 94 

Hendrix, Bishop 147 

Henning 79 

Herridon, E. W 160, 184 

Hess 79 

Hibbard, Dr 29, 118, 

149, 150, 204, 210 

Hippolytus 40 

Historical writers 50 

Hoadley, Bishop 198 

Hodge, A. A 91, 186 

Hodge, Charles 34, 

36, 177, 186, 195, 225 

Hornbekius 60 

Hoss, E. E 230 

Hovey, A 191 

Hunter, John 87 

Immersion 164 

Infant baptism 168 

Independent, The 110, 

111, 205 

Infant communion 212 

Interior, The 21, 86 

Irish Articles of Faith. 63 

Jackson 127 

Jacob 55 

Jefferson , Thomas ... 97 , 98 

Jerome 41 

Jobius 42 



250 



INDEX. 



PAGE 

John's baptism 24 

Jones, S. P 187 

Journal and Messenger... 244 

Kaye, Bishop 55 

Keener, Bishop 148 

Killin, Dr 55 

King-, P 47, 65 

Knapp, George.. .24, 27, 163 
Kurtz 48, 51 

Ladd 209 

Latitudinarianism 8 

Lard, Moses 159, 183 

Latimer, Bishop 79 

Lecky 169 

Lerida, Council of 45 

Liddell and Scott. . .166, 202 

Litton 54 

London, Bishop of 133 

Lowth, Bishop, asked to 
ordain a Methodist. . . 128 

Luther 60 

Lundy 214 

Macaulay 17, 175 

Macknight 34 

Madison, President 99 

Malice 71 

Manton, Dr 60 

Marckius 57 

Martensen, Bishop 58 

Martyr, Justin 39 

Mass, The 44-46 

Mastricht 56 

Mather, Increase 115 

Mathews, R. T 184 

McDowell 57 

McGarvey, J. W 161 



PAGE 

McTyeire, Bishop . .121, 

124, 126, 128 

Mell, P.H 193 

Melvill 200 

Membership, converted. 185 

Merrill, Bishop 229, 231 

Methodists not in har- 
mony among them- 
selves, 228; Close com- 
munionists, 118-155; 
Without sacraments 

for seven years 140 

Meyer 35, 172, 202 

Milman 52 

Miscellaneous writers . . 59 

Montf ort, David 107 

Moschus, J 217 

Mosheim 50 



Neander 48, 50 

Nevin 176 



Observer, The 86 

Old Catholic Church. . . 61 

Olshausen .34, 35 

Oosterzee 34 

Open communion bor- 
rowed from the Bap- 
tists, 234; destroys Gos- 
pel discipline, 202;open 
communionists do not 
endorse each other. . . 220 
Ordination, Episcopal . . 66 

Orthodox Creed 237 

Origin 41, 172 



Palmer, B. M. 
Palmer 



84 
232 



INDEX. 



251 



PAGE 

Pan-Presbyterian Coun- 
cil 101 

Parker, E 244 

Pendleton, J. M 191 

Perrins 241 

Pictetus 56 

Positive and moral law. 197 

Prayer Book 69-72, 174 

Prerequisites to the 

Lord's Supper 23, 81 

Predestination 223 

Presbyterians and Meth- 
odists not agreed in 
doctrine, 103, 222; Con- 
fession of Faith, 81, 85, 
88-90, 175, 185; internal 
troubles of, 229; origin 

of 92 

Pressensfe 51, 167 

Pseudo-Dyonisius 216 

Quincey 16 

Ravennellius 59 

Becorder, Episcopal 64 

Beligious Herald 243 

Resolutions of Southern 

Baptist Convention. 10, 11 

Riddle 58 

Rives 98 

Roberts, W.C 82 

Robertson, J. G 52 

Rules for translating 

King James' Bible 164 

Rushwood 89 

Salmatius 213 

Saxony, Confession of . . 95 



PAGE 

Schafl, Philip. 12, 42, 44, 
45, 48, 54, 84, 176, 216, 224 

Schismatics 68 

Schleitheim Confession. 234 
Scholars, testimony of . 50-60 

Scotch Confession 62 

Scriptural statement . . 21-38 
Seven London Churches, 

Confession of 235 

Skeats 12, 120, 124, 126 

Smith, J. Pye 166 

Smyth, John, Confession 

of 235 

Sniveley 69 

Somerset, Confession of. 236 

Southey, Robert 123 

Spanheim 51 

Spurgeon, Charles H., 
241-245; not an open 

communionist 241 

Stanley, A. P 36 

Stevens, A 128, 130 

Steir, Rudolf 60 

Stillingfieet, Bishop .... 47 

Stow 74 

Summers, Thomas 188 

Syriac Version 31, 32 

SystematicTheology and 
Dogmatics, writers on 56 

Tertullian 43, 163 

Thayer, J. H 166, 202 

Theophylact 43 

Thompson, Hugh Miller 73 

Trent, Council of 61 

Turretin 9,27,56, 92 

Tyerman...l21, 122, 123, 
129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 179 



252 



DsDEX. 



Valentina. Council of , 



PAGE 

. . 45 



TVaddington 52 

Wake 69 

WaU 49, 65. 76,175, 239 

Washington. George ... 14 

Watson. Richard 151 

Way land. H. L 241 

Webster S 

Wesley. Charles. . . .122, 

12.5-127, 223 

Wesley. Joiin 9, 

120^125, 131, 179, 222, 223 
Westminster Confession 63 
Wheatlev 68-70 



PAGE 

White. Bishop. Dr. Coke 
appeals to him for or- 
dination 132 

WMtehead 130, 131 

Wilkinson, W. C 195 

WilLiams 69 

Williams. Roger 13 

Withro^. J. H 19. 

21-23, 114 

Witsius ... 57 

Woods. Dr 18 

Wright, G. W Ill 

Zanchius 59 



1 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-21:- 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 











